Research Says Linux Servers Mostly Hack-Free
Sean Michael Kerner July 30 2004

According to new research published by Evans Data this week, a
significant majority of Linux servers have never been infected with a
virus and have never been compromised by a malicious attack.

[...]

"So a virus can enter the system via a user's browser or e-mail
program and then escalate its own privileges far enough to damage the
whole system," Petreley explained.

"Linux isolates users from system programs far better -- so even if
someone came up with a clever e-mail or browser virus that worked on
Linux, the virus shouldn't be able to damage anything more than the
user's personal files -- and even that can be avoided with a cleverly
configured email and browser."

To further elaborate his argument, Petreley pointed out that Outlook
and IE can be run under Linux using an emulator, though any potential
malicious activity still does not damage the underlying operating
system.

"Since things like WINE and Win4Lin emulate Windows faithfully, a
virus that enters through Outlook or IE could possibly damage your
installation of WINE or Win4Lin, but it cannot damage the Linux
operating system itself," Petreley said ...

http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/3388181
- unquote -

If a bunch of third party researchers can produce a Windows API to all
intents and purposes identical to the Microsoft one, then what needs
of an Operating System monopoly. Why not have the OS contributed to
the Open Source community and Micros~1 can write apps for it like the
rest. In other words a real level playing field.

On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 15:55:35 -0700, Simon Cooke wrote:

> On 1 Aug 2004 12:22:31 -0700, Daeron wrote:
> 
>> Research Says Linux Servers Mostly Hack-Free
>> Sean Michael Kerner July 30 2004
>> 
>> According to new research published by Evans Data this week, a
>> significant majority of Linux servers have never been infected with a
>> virus and have never been compromised by a malicious attack.
>> 
>> [...]
>> 
>> "So a virus can enter the system via a user's browser or e-mail
>> program and then escalate its own privileges far enough to damage the
>> whole system," Petreley explained.
>> 
>> "Linux isolates users from system programs far better -- so even if
>> someone came up with a clever e-mail or browser virus that worked on
>> Linux, the virus shouldn't be able to damage anything more than the
>> user's personal files -- and even that can be avoided with a cleverly
>> configured email and browser."
>> 
>> To further elaborate his argument, Petreley pointed out that Outlook
>> and IE can be run under Linux using an emulator, though any potential
>> malicious activity still does not damage the underlying operating
>> system.
>> 
>> "Since things like WINE and Win4Lin emulate Windows faithfully, a
>> virus that enters through Outlook or IE could possibly damage your
>> installation of WINE or Win4Lin, but it cannot damage the Linux
>> operating system itself," Petreley said ...
>> 
>> http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/3388181
>> - unquote -
>> 
>> If a bunch of third party researchers can produce a Windows API to all
>> intents and purposes identical to the Microsoft one, then what needs
>> of an Operating System monopoly. Why not have the OS contributed to
>> the Open Source community and Micros~1 can write apps for it like the
>> rest. In other words a real level playing field.
> 
> 
> Before reading one of his posts, consider this:
> 
> Daeron is a despicable liar of the highest order. He has attacked me
> repeatedly in this newsgroup. In his latest attack posted to his blog, he
> is claimikng that I posted requests for sexual acts on another newsgroup.
> 
> Those posts were forged by another lowlife Linux Advocate, but he's trying
> to claim that this is my "hobby".
> 
> Doug Mitchell aka. Doug Mentohl aka. Daeron is a despicable lowlife piece
> of scum who will stop at nothing to promote Linux - including attempting to
> get people fired, and posting lies about them online.
> 
> Read his posts with care.

Ah fsck it! *** PLONK ****

On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 00:33:06 +0000, Patricia wrote:

> You are in denial.


Thought you said you where leaving months ago Flathead!

On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 12:22:31 -0700, Daeron wrote:

Posted from Google through an open proxy.
troll.

-- 
Patricia Fitzhenry
Remove DEL to reply
Registered Linux user #358464

Donn Miller wrote:

> Actually, I think a virus would make Wine crash.  Wine could provide
>  virus protection that way, too.

What exactly would a virus do to an application running under Wine.
I understand that Wine can access the DLLs in the Windows partition.
Can these DLLs be stored in a Reiser partition and therefore be subject
to Linux type file attributes.

Daeron wrote:

> To further elaborate his argument, Petreley pointed out that Outlook
> and IE can be run under Linux using an emulator, though any potential
> malicious activity still does not damage the underlying operating
> system.
> 
> "Since things like WINE and Win4Lin emulate Windows faithfully, a
> virus that enters through Outlook or IE could possibly damage your
> installation of WINE or Win4Lin, but it cannot damage the Linux
> operating system itself," Petreley said ...

Actually, I think a virus would make Wine crash.  Wine could provide 
virus protection that way, too.

Dave wrote:
> Donn Miller wrote:
> 
>> Actually, I think a virus would make Wine crash.  Wine could provide
>>  virus protection that way, too.
> 
> 
> What exactly would a virus do to an application running under Wine.

Probably use relocatable dll's.  I don't know.  Some type of dll's used 
to consistently make Wine crash, which were those which had relocatable 
DLL's.  Also, Wine might have the equivalent of login limits, where you 
can set a limit to the number of processes which can be forked.  Wine 
(or any app) could still wipe out the files in one's home directory.

On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 17:52:16 -0400, Donn Miller wrote:

> Daeron wrote:
> 
>> To further elaborate his argument, Petreley pointed out that Outlook
>> and IE can be run under Linux using an emulator, though any potential
>> malicious activity still does not damage the underlying operating
>> system.
>> 
>> "Since things like WINE and Win4Lin emulate Windows faithfully, a
>> virus that enters through Outlook or IE could possibly damage your
>> installation of WINE or Win4Lin, but it cannot damage the Linux
>> operating system itself," Petreley said ...
> 
> Actually, I think a virus would make Wine crash.  Wine could provide 
> virus protection that way, too.

From what I have seen wine crashes all by itself.
it doesn't need any help from virii.


-- 
Patricia Fitzhenry
Remove DEL to reply
Registered Linux user #358464

Patricia wrote:

> From what I have seen wine crashes all by itself.
> it doesn't need any help from virii.

That's pretty much what I meant.  Running Wine tends to be a delicate 
balance of things, and a new entity (virus in this case) would upset 
that balance and cause Wine to crash.  On the other hand, I've seen apps 
run for days under Wine, and under a separate instance, those same apps 
would crash immediately after starting them.

On 1 Aug 2004 12:22:31 -0700, Daeron wrote:

> Research Says Linux Servers Mostly Hack-Free
> Sean Michael Kerner July 30 2004
> 
> According to new research published by Evans Data this week, a
> significant majority of Linux servers have never been infected with a
> virus and have never been compromised by a malicious attack.
> 
> [...]
> 
> "So a virus can enter the system via a user's browser or e-mail
> program and then escalate its own privileges far enough to damage the
> whole system," Petreley explained.
> 
> "Linux isolates users from system programs far better -- so even if
> someone came up with a clever e-mail or browser virus that worked on
> Linux, the virus shouldn't be able to damage anything more than the
> user's personal files -- and even that can be avoided with a cleverly
> configured email and browser."
> 
> To further elaborate his argument, Petreley pointed out that Outlook
> and IE can be run under Linux using an emulator, though any potential
> malicious activity still does not damage the underlying operating
> system.
> 
> "Since things like WINE and Win4Lin emulate Windows faithfully, a
> virus that enters through Outlook or IE could possibly damage your
> installation of WINE or Win4Lin, but it cannot damage the Linux
> operating system itself," Petreley said ...
> 
> http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/3388181
> - unquote -
> 
> If a bunch of third party researchers can produce a Windows API to all
> intents and purposes identical to the Microsoft one, then what needs
> of an Operating System monopoly. Why not have the OS contributed to
> the Open Source community and Micros~1 can write apps for it like the
> rest. In other words a real level playing field.


Before reading one of his posts, consider this:

Daeron is a despicable liar of the highest order. He has attacked me
repeatedly in this newsgroup. In his latest attack posted to his blog, he
is claimikng that I posted requests for sexual acts on another newsgroup.

Those posts were forged by another lowlife Linux Advocate, but he's trying
to claim that this is my "hobby".

Doug Mitchell aka. Doug Mentohl aka. Daeron is a despicable lowlife piece
of scum who will stop at nothing to promote Linux - including attempting to
get people fired, and posting lies about them online.

Read his posts with care.

On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 18:44:42 -0400, Donn Miller wrote:

> Patricia wrote:
> 
>> From what I have seen wine crashes all by itself.
>> it doesn't need any help from virii.
> 
> That's pretty much what I meant.  Running Wine tends to be a delicate 
> balance of things, and a new entity (virus in this case) would upset 
> that balance and cause Wine to crash.  On the other hand, I've seen apps 
> run for days under Wine, and under a separate instance, those same apps 
> would crash immediately after starting them.

I'm a firm believer in using applications designed for the operating
system being used.
Wine and other *emulators* just complicate matters.
There are enough great Linux applications so why do we need wine?

-- 
Patricia Fitzhenry
Remove DEL to reply
Registered Linux user #358464

In article <2n57i0FstuokU1@uni-berlin.de> (Sun, 01 Aug 2004 23:01:33
+0200), Dave wrote:

> What exactly would a virus do to an application running under Wine.

A virus which trashes the registry could trash WINE's registry.  A
WINE-specific virus might be able to damage any portion of the system for
which the user had privileges.

> I understand that Wine can access the DLLs in the Windows partition.

I don't know if that's true or not.

> Can these DLLs be stored in a Reiser partition and therefore be subject
> to Linux type file attributes.

Yes, but there's no restriction on the partition type.  I always copied
the "native" DLLs I wanted to use to my ~/.wine directory stored on ext2
or ext3.

-- 
"There is nobody to turn to if ... a (Linux) customer says, 'I need this.'
 You can't turn to IBM... All they can say is, 'You can call us and ask us
 a question, but if you actually want something done we can't do it.'"
-- Steve Ballmer lies.  http://news.com.com/2008-1082-998297.html.

On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 17:04:09 -0600, Hamilcar Barca wrote:

> In article <2n57i0FstuokU1@uni-berlin.de> (Sun, 01 Aug 2004 23:01:33
> +0200), Dave wrote:
> 
>> What exactly would a virus do to an application running under Wine.
> 
> A virus which trashes the registry could trash WINE's registry.  A
> WINE-specific virus might be able to damage any portion of the system for
> which the user had privileges.
> 
>> I understand that Wine can access the DLLs in the Windows partition.
> 
> I don't know if that's true or not.
> 
>> Can these DLLs be stored in a Reiser partition and therefore be subject
>> to Linux type file attributes.
> 
> Yes, but there's no restriction on the partition type.  I always copied
> the "native" DLLs I wanted to use to my ~/.wine directory stored on ext2
> or ext3.

You have no idea what you are talking about.
Go back to grade school where you belong.


-- 
Patricia Fitzhenry
Remove DEL to reply
Registered Linux user #358464

Patricia wrote:

> I'm a firm believer in using applications designed for the operating
> system being used.
> Wine and other *emulators* just complicate matters.
> There are enough great Linux applications so why do we need wine?

Wine is not an emulator.  It translates Win32 calls to native (Li|u)nix 
calls.  What it does isn't much different than what JavaVM does.  It's 
more like an interpreter than an emulator.  Besides, there's always some 
apps somewhere which isn't natively available for (Li|u)nix, and Wine is 
handy for such situations.

On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 19:17:39 -0400, Donn Miller wrote:

> Patricia wrote:
> 
>> I'm a firm believer in using applications designed for the operating
>> system being used.
>> Wine and other *emulators* just complicate matters.
>> There are enough great Linux applications so why do we need wine?
> 
> Wine is not an emulator.  It translates Win32 calls to native (Li|u)nix 
> calls.  What it does isn't much different than what JavaVM does.  It's 
> more like an interpreter than an emulator.  Besides, there's always some 
> apps somewhere which isn't natively available for (Li|u)nix, and Wine is 
> handy for such situations.

Which is why I used the *

Point is, wine is just another layer between application and operating
system and I don't care what anyone says I have yet to see a Windows
application run better under Wine than it does under native Windows.

-- 
Patricia Fitzhenry
Remove DEL to reply
Registered Linux user #358464

Patricia wrote:

> You have no idea what you are talking about.
> Go back to grade school where you belong.

No, flatty, you don't know what you're talking about.  Your posts, while 
purportedly "unbiased", have such religious zeal to them.  Read your 
posts in which you crusade against Linux fonts and printers.  Your posts 
on Linux printers have been refuted.  I'm thankful for respectable 
people like Daeron who provide an archive of your posts, so we can point 
out your folly later.

In article <OMePc.21423$cL2.10380980@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> (Sun, 01 Aug
2004 23:11:42 +0000), Patricia wrote:

> On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 17:04:09 -0600, Hamilcar Barca wrote:
> 
>> In article <2n57i0FstuokU1@uni-berlin.de> (Sun, 01 Aug 2004 23:01:33
>> +0200), Dave wrote:
>> 
>>> What exactly would a virus do to an application running under Wine.
>> 
>> A virus which trashes the registry could trash WINE's registry.  A
>> WINE-specific virus might be able to damage any portion of the system for
>> which the user had privileges.
>> 
>>> I understand that Wine can access the DLLs in the Windows partition.
>> 
>> I don't know if that's true or not.
>> 
>>> Can these DLLs be stored in a Reiser partition and therefore be subject
>>> to Linux type file attributes.
>> 
>> Yes, but there's no restriction on the partition type.  I always copied
>> the "native" DLLs I wanted to use to my ~/.wine directory stored on ext2
>> or ext3.
> 
> You have no idea what you are talking about.

Do you have any proof this doesn't work or that I didn't do it?

If it can't dispute the facts, Flatfish must attack the poster.

> Go back to grade school where you belong.

I don't take order from Flatfish or their sock-puppet trolls.

-- 
"[T]he Boies team is really stepping up with the key generals
 there running the case now as it relates to the litigation.
 They're firmly driving that."
-- Darl McBride, CEO, The SCO Group. 15 June 2004.

On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 19:20:58 -0400, Donn Miller wrote:

> Patricia wrote:
> 
>> You have no idea what you are talking about.
>> Go back to grade school where you belong.
> 
> No, flatty, you don't know what you're talking about.  Your posts, while 
> purportedly "unbiased", have such religious zeal to them.  Read your 
> posts in which you crusade against Linux fonts and printers.  Your posts 
> on Linux printers have been refuted.  I'm thankful for respectable 
> people like Daeron who provide an archive of your posts, so we can point 
> out your folly later.

Too bad you are a fool that is fooled by a nutcase like Daeron.
Of course you can prove I am Flatfish?
Yes?

If so, do it.
If not, shut up.



-- 
Patricia Fitzhenry
Remove DEL to reply
Registered Linux user #358464

On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 17:56:36 -0600, Hamilcar Barca wrote:

> In article <OMePc.21423$cL2.10380980@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> (Sun, 01 Aug
> 2004 23:11:42 +0000), Patricia wrote:
> 
>> On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 17:04:09 -0600, Hamilcar Barca wrote:
>> 
>>> In article <2n57i0FstuokU1@uni-berlin.de> (Sun, 01 Aug 2004 23:01:33
>>> +0200), Dave wrote:
>>> 
>>>> What exactly would a virus do to an application running under Wine.
>>> 
>>> A virus which trashes the registry could trash WINE's registry.  A
>>> WINE-specific virus might be able to damage any portion of the system for
>>> which the user had privileges.
>>> 
>>>> I understand that Wine can access the DLLs in the Windows partition.
>>> 
>>> I don't know if that's true or not.
>>> 
>>>> Can these DLLs be stored in a Reiser partition and therefore be subject
>>>> to Linux type file attributes.
>>> 
>>> Yes, but there's no restriction on the partition type.  I always copied
>>> the "native" DLLs I wanted to use to my ~/.wine directory stored on ext2
>>> or ext3.
>> 
>> You have no idea what you are talking about.
> 
> Do you have any proof this doesn't work or that I didn't do it?
> 
> If it can't dispute the facts, Flatfish must attack the poster.
> 
>> Go back to grade school where you belong.
> 
> I don't take order from Flatfish or their sock-puppet trolls.
You have to be the biggest fool on the face of the earth.
Neither Linux nor Windows needs a sorry assed idiot like you.



-- 
Patricia Fitzhenry
Remove DEL to reply
Registered Linux user #358464

On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 17:32:01 +0000, Freeride wrote:

> On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 15:55:35 -0700, Simon Cooke wrote:
> 
>> On 1 Aug 2004 12:22:31 -0700, Daeron wrote:
>> 
>>> Research Says Linux Servers Mostly Hack-Free
>>> Sean Michael Kerner July 30 2004
>>> 
>>> According to new research published by Evans Data this week, a
>>> significant majority of Linux servers have never been infected with a
>>> virus and have never been compromised by a malicious attack.
>>> 
>>> [...]
>>> 
>>> "So a virus can enter the system via a user's browser or e-mail
>>> program and then escalate its own privileges far enough to damage the
>>> whole system," Petreley explained.
>>> 
>>> "Linux isolates users from system programs far better -- so even if
>>> someone came up with a clever e-mail or browser virus that worked on
>>> Linux, the virus shouldn't be able to damage anything more than the
>>> user's personal files -- and even that can be avoided with a cleverly
>>> configured email and browser."
>>> 
>>> To further elaborate his argument, Petreley pointed out that Outlook
>>> and IE can be run under Linux using an emulator, though any potential
>>> malicious activity still does not damage the underlying operating
>>> system.
>>> 
>>> "Since things like WINE and Win4Lin emulate Windows faithfully, a
>>> virus that enters through Outlook or IE could possibly damage your
>>> installation of WINE or Win4Lin, but it cannot damage the Linux
>>> operating system itself," Petreley said ...
>>> 
>>> http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/3388181
>>> - unquote -
>>> 
>>> If a bunch of third party researchers can produce a Windows API to all
>>> intents and purposes identical to the Microsoft one, then what needs
>>> of an Operating System monopoly. Why not have the OS contributed to
>>> the Open Source community and Micros~1 can write apps for it like the
>>> rest. In other words a real level playing field.
>> 
>> 
>> Before reading one of his posts, consider this:
>> 
>> Daeron is a despicable liar of the highest order. He has attacked me
>> repeatedly in this newsgroup. In his latest attack posted to his blog, he
>> is claimikng that I posted requests for sexual acts on another newsgroup.
>> 
>> Those posts were forged by another lowlife Linux Advocate, but he's trying
>> to claim that this is my "hobby".
>> 
>> Doug Mitchell aka. Doug Mentohl aka. Daeron is a despicable lowlife piece
>> of scum who will stop at nothing to promote Linux - including attempting to
>> get people fired, and posting lies about them online.
>> 
>> Read his posts with care.
> 
> Ah fsck it! *** PLONK ****

You are in denial.

-- 
Patricia Fitzhenry
Remove DEL to reply
Registered Linux user #358464

On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 17:37:21 +0000, Freeride wrote:

> On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 00:33:06 +0000, Patricia wrote:
> 
>> You are in denial.
> 
> 
> Thought you said you where leaving months ago Flathead!

Prove I am Flatfish or shutup and go elsewhere.

-- 
Patricia Fitzhenry
Remove DEL to reply
Registered Linux user #358464

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

On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 23:11:42 GMT,
 Patricia <patty_fitz_del_henry@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 17:04:09 -0600, Hamilcar Barca wrote:
>
>> In article <2n57i0FstuokU1@uni-berlin.de> (Sun, 01 Aug 2004 23:01:33
>> +0200), Dave wrote:
>> 
>>> What exactly would a virus do to an application running under Wine.
>> 
>> A virus which trashes the registry could trash WINE's registry.  A
>> WINE-specific virus might be able to damage any portion of the system for
>> which the user had privileges.
>> 
>>> I understand that Wine can access the DLLs in the Windows partition.
>> 
>> I don't know if that's true or not.
>> 
>>> Can these DLLs be stored in a Reiser partition and therefore be subject
>>> to Linux type file attributes.
>> 
>> Yes, but there's no restriction on the partition type.  I always copied
>> the "native" DLLs I wanted to use to my ~/.wine directory stored on ext2
>> or ext3.
>
> You have no idea what you are talking about.
> Go back to grade school where you belong.
>
>


Are you claiming that you can't run wine apps from an ext2/3 partition?
If so, I assure you, you are in error. 

If you aren't claiming that. Then what are you claiming that Hamilcar
got wrong in his message? or were you simply spewing hatred as usual? 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFBDZCmd90bcYOAWPYRAo0bAKDW/JVsCEMo/GcfWa8rDd7OWOe8HgCeOu0x
fUo6flitGpQiETGB5U/aTMY=
=rYqR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- 
Jim Richardson     http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged
demo.

Flatricia wrote:

> You are in denial.

Does denial look like this?

  From: Flatricia <flatty_putz_del_henry@yahoo.com>
  Message-ID: <5YcPc.21199$cL2.10084281@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>
  NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 01 Aug 2004 17:07:13 EDT

  Like I said, I'm not Flatfish, never have been and never will be.


If not, could you give us a good example, Flatfish?

Patricia wrote:

> On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 17:52:16 -0400, Donn Miller wrote:
> 
>> Daeron wrote:
>> 
>>> To further elaborate his argument, Petreley pointed out that Outlook
>>> and IE can be run under Linux using an emulator, though any potential
>>> malicious activity still does not damage the underlying operating
>>> system.
>>> 
>>> "Since things like WINE and Win4Lin emulate Windows faithfully, a
>>> virus that enters through Outlook or IE could possibly damage your
>>> installation of WINE or Win4Lin, but it cannot damage the Linux
>>> operating system itself," Petreley said ...
>> 
>> Actually, I think a virus would make Wine crash.  Wine could provide
>> virus protection that way, too.
> 
> From what I have seen wine crashes all by itself.
> it doesn't need any help from virii.
> 
> 

Wow... It emulates windows better than I thought possible....
******************************************************************************
                     Registered Linux User Number 185956
              FSF Associate Member number 2340 since 05/20/2004
             Join me in chat at #linux-users on irc.freenode.net
    Buy an Xbox for $149.00, run linux on it and Microsoft loses $150.00!
    9:44pm  up 104 days, 26 min,  7 users,  load average: 0.05, 0.08, 0.08

In article <6uf0u1-2vk.ln1@grendel.myth> (Mon, 02 Aug 2004 01:00:11
+0000), Jim Richardson wrote:

> On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 23:11:42 GMT,
>  Patricia <patty_fitz_del_henry@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> [chum]
>>
> Are you claiming that you can't run wine apps from an ext2/3 partition?

Flatfish denied everything I said.  Of course, it provided no proof.

> If so, I assure you, you are in error. 

My claim was actually that the Windows DLLs could be on ext2/3.  You're
also correct in that the applications can live on native file systems.

> If you aren't claiming that. Then what are you claiming that Hamilcar
> got wrong in his message? or were you simply spewing hatred as usual? 

Fish don't really hate.  However, some non-schooling species are quite
territorial.  I don't have any experience with winter flounder but members
of the family Cichlidae are territorial and aggressive.

-- 
[Microsoft's] illegal conduct has enabled [it] to acquire a dominant
 position in the market for work group server operating systems ..."
-- European Commission ruling.  24 March 2004.

Patricia wrote:
> On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 17:04:09 -0600, Hamilcar Barca wrote:
> 
> 
>>In article <2n57i0FstuokU1@uni-berlin.de> (Sun, 01 Aug 2004 23:01:33
>>+0200), Dave wrote:
>>
>>
>>>What exactly would a virus do to an application running under Wine.
>>
>>A virus which trashes the registry could trash WINE's registry.  A
>>WINE-specific virus might be able to damage any portion of the system for
>>which the user had privileges.
>>
>>
>>>I understand that Wine can access the DLLs in the Windows partition.
>>
>>I don't know if that's true or not.
>>
>>
>>>Can these DLLs be stored in a Reiser partition and therefore be subject
>>>to Linux type file attributes.
>>
>>Yes, but there's no restriction on the partition type.  I always copied
>>the "native" DLLs I wanted to use to my ~/.wine directory stored on ext2
>>or ext3.
> 
> 
> You have no idea what you are talking about.
> Go back to grade school where you belong.

Can't understand the message so you attack the messenger.  I noticed you 
haven't discussed any of his points.

On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 04:25:24 -0400, Donn Miller wrote:


> Can't understand the message so you attack the messenger.  I noticed you 
> haven't discussed any of his points.

He hasn't any.
-- 
Patricia Fitzhenry
Remove DEL to reply
Registered Linux user #358464

On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 01:00:11 +0000, Jim Richardson wrote:


> 
> Are you claiming that you can't run wine apps from an ext2/3 partition?
> If so, I assure you, you are in error. 

Of course not, that is where I have it installed. 
> If you aren't claiming that. Then what are you claiming that Hamilcar
> got wrong in his message? or were you simply spewing hatred as usual? 

That I am Flatfish.


-- 
Patricia Fitzhenry
Remove DEL to reply
Registered Linux user #358464

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

On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 14:45:21 GMT,
 Patricia <patty_fitz_del_henry@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 01:00:11 +0000, Jim Richardson wrote:
>
>
>> 
>> Are you claiming that you can't run wine apps from an ext2/3 partition?
>> If so, I assure you, you are in error. 
>
> Of course not, that is where I have it installed. 
>> If you aren't claiming that. Then what are you claiming that Hamilcar
>> got wrong in his message? or were you simply spewing hatred as usual? 
>
> That I am Flatfish.
>
>

he made no such claim in the post to which you replied. 


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFBDnuSd90bcYOAWPYRAp4PAKCyPS0iqGrxwFOx1L9bKItnfFbafgCgxCln
ZWyK7t8juWeGylXrjf917Lw=
=86UY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- 
Jim Richardson     http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Unix has security which has been tested by conniving, unscrupulous
    college students over generations.

In article <ila2u1-cip.ln1@grendel.myth> (Mon, 02 Aug 2004 18:00:11
+0000), Jim Richardson wrote:

> On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 14:45:21 GMT,
>  Patricia <patty_fitz_del_henry@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 01:00:11 +0000, Jim Richardson wrote:
>>
>>> If you aren't claiming that. Then what are you claiming that Hamilcar
>>> got wrong in his message? or were you simply spewing hatred as usual?
>>
>> That I am Flatfish.
> 
> he made no such claim in the post to which you replied.

I had pushed the poster beyond its ability to appear unbiased, compelling
it to commence its Flatfish-like attacks.  The OP became unable to
distinguish my non-responsive troll baiting from ordinary articles, simply
attacking by name.

He or she became increasingly irrational and I found some morbid
fascination with continued provocation.  Although my usual policy is to
score to -9999, for 30 days, at the first sign of trolling, for some
reason after I cleaned my score file, I didn't rescore the troll.

Hopefully, the responses to my prior articles have exposed the outright
troll nature of the OP.  However, even if this is the case, it does not
excuse the baiting.  Now that I've had a good night's sleep, this
particular poster's articles are deleted by Pan unread and unreadable.

I apologize to the regular posters for feeding the troll.

Donn Miller wrote:

> Dave wrote:
>> Donn Miller wrote:
>> 
>>> Actually, I think a virus would make Wine crash.  Wine could provide
>>>  virus protection that way, too.
>> 
>> 
>> What exactly would a virus do to an application running under Wine.
> 
> Probably use relocatable dll's.  I don't know.  Some type of dll's used
> to consistently make Wine crash, which were those which had relocatable
> DLL's.  Also, Wine might have the equivalent of login limits, where you
> can set a limit to the number of processes which can be forked.  Wine
> (or any app) could still wipe out the files in one's home directory.

Not if you don't give your home directory a wine drive letter - any files
needed by the wine apps in use can be copied to a separate subdirectory
that IS configured in wine's config file - in other words only giving wine
access to $HOME/winefiles instead of $HOME and only putting copies of files
currently worked on in the winfiles directory, backing them up after use -
any virus can then only destroy wine's own data (which wouldn't be the only
copy of the data, the original still being in $HOME) rather than the user's
whole home directory.