Windows XP is turning five years old, but will anybody want to celebrate the occasion?

http://www.washingtonpost.co
m/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/23/AR2006092300510.html

"This operating system has needed a steady diet of
patches to stay close to 
healthy. On a machine with a September 2001-vintage copy of
Windows XP Home 
Edition, installing every bug-fix released as of August
ballooned its Windows 
directory from 987 megabytes to 2.43 gigabytes.

You can think of Windows XP as a house with a second floor
built of spackle, 
wood filler and duct tape.

And even with all those updates, the operating system has
met only a few of 
its goals while falling short of others in a catastrophic
manner. And it's 
done so for reasons that can't all be blamed on XP's
design or Microsoft's 
own actions. That, in turn, means that its long-delayed
replacement, Windows 
Vista -- now due to ship in January -- may run into the same
problems.

Consider stability, the single biggest selling point of XP.
The operating 
system was meant to stop individual programs from crashing
the system, and it 
succeeded. It takes an especially malignant program to send
my copy of XP to 
a "blue screen of death."

But that's not the only way XP can crash. ......"


----
Husker Linux Users Group mailing list
To unsubscribe, send a message to huskerlug-requestfreelists.org
with a subject of UNSUBSCRIBE

	Ah, just article to pass around to Windows users!  Hey, the
Windows that I most
often use is Windows 98SE!  ---Jim

GreyGeek wrote:
> http://www.washingtonpost.co
m/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/23/AR2006092300510.html
> 
> "This operating system has needed a steady diet of
patches to stay close to 
> healthy. On a machine with a September 2001-vintage
copy of Windows XP Home 
> Edition, installing every bug-fix released as of August
ballooned its Windows 
> directory from 987 megabytes to 2.43 gigabytes.
> 
> You can think of Windows XP as a house with a second
floor built of spackle, 
> wood filler and duct tape.
> 
> And even with all those updates, the operating system
has met only a few of 
> its goals while falling short of others in a
catastrophic manner. And it's 
> done so for reasons that can't all be blamed on XP's
design or Microsoft's 
> own actions. That, in turn, means that its long-delayed
replacement, Windows 
> Vista -- now due to ship in January -- may run into the
same problems.
> 
> Consider stability, the single biggest selling point of
XP. The operating 
> system was meant to stop individual programs from
crashing the system, and it 
> succeeded. It takes an especially malignant program to
send my copy of XP to 
> a "blue screen of death."
> 
> But that's not the only way XP can crash. ......"
> 
> 
> ----
> Husker Linux Users Group mailing list
> To unsubscribe, send a message to huskerlug-requestfreelists.org
> with a subject of UNSUBSCRIBE
> 
> 
> 

----
Husker Linux Users Group mailing list
To unsubscribe, send a message to huskerlug-requestfreelists.org
with a subject of UNSUBSCRIBE

Hey folks, I just subscribed to this forum and I must say,
reading all
the linux propaganda is amusing. 

If you're not a computer moron, Windows XP works
wonderfully, running
Firefox, with no accessible services behind a firewall. 
With
automatic updates it takes less work to keep it up to date
than a
Linux box, and with additional security knowledge, you can
actually
get rid of the firewall and put it out in the wild.

Most of the problems are created by the lusers who use
unpatched
systems, while downloading spyware and trojans and purposely
running
them.  Fortunately Linux is too challenging for those kinds
of people
to use as of yet.  That's also why it has fewer problems
with this
sort of thing.  Security through obscurity.  What works for
Linux also
works for the Mac.

I wouldn't go so far as to pin all the problems with XP
security on
the OS, your run-of-the mill Linux software is just as
security hole
ridden and buggy as Microshaft junk.  It's just that having
to read a
man page and compile a program holds most of the morons back
from
installing harmful things on their computer.  With Windows
it's just a
point and a click to complete ownage.  I guarantee, the more
user
friendly Linux becomes, the more insecure it will seem as a
result of
the users.

On 9/26/06, Jim Worrest <jworresthuskeraccess.com> wrote:
>         Ah, just article to pass around to Windows
users!  Hey, the Windows that I most
> often use is Windows 98SE!  ---Jim

----
Husker Linux Users Group mailing list
To unsubscribe, send a message to huskerlug-requestfreelists.org
with a subject of UNSUBSCRIBE

I've seen countless numbers of these debates through the
years, so I'm
hesitant to reply, but since you posted it to our list I
feel compelled.

On Tue, 2006-09-26 at 17:17 -0500, Charles Leslie wrote:
> Hey folks, I just subscribed to this forum and I must
say, reading all
> the linux propaganda is amusing. 
> 
> If you're not a computer moron, Windows XP works
wonderfully, 

Inflammatory language will not win you many friends.  The
implication
here is that anyone who has troubles with XP is a
"computer moron".  I
assure the last time installed Windows XP the fact it kept
losing the
DVD drive after probing the hardware had nothing to do with
my computer
knowledge.  The fact I had to possibly violate the DMCA in
order to
install Windows XP does not inspire confidence.

> running
> Firefox, with no accessible services behind a firewall.
 With
> automatic updates it takes less work to keep it up to
date than a
> Linux box, 

Linux has had automatic updates since RedHat 7.  It just as
easy/hard to
keep a modern linux distro up to snuff as it is XP.

> and with additional security knowledge, you can
actually
> get rid of the firewall and put it out in the wild.

I run almost all of my Linux boxes 'in the wild' without
firewalls, your
point? 


> 
> Most of the problems are created by the lusers who use
unpatched
> systems, while downloading spyware and trojans and
purposely running
> them.  

Half true.  Users (again, lusers is a derogatory term
apparently used to
incite a response from the reader) of XP are partially to
blame.  The
fact that Windows was originally designed from a 'user=root'
design
paradigm (and the fact much of that philosophy remains
intact) is also
at issue.  If I download a file to my Windows box and
execute it it
should not be able, for instance, to change the registry
without my
explicit consent.  

XP is better than older versions of Windows in that you can
cordon off a
user and deny them admin.  Most people don't use this
feature because
they are used to things being the way the were.  Also, I've
found it
awkward to move back and forth to install software.

> Fortunately Linux is too challenging for those kinds of
people
> to use as of yet.  

Again you're implying Windows users who've had problems are
stupid.  I
don't think that's true.

I also don't think its Linux's complexity that keeps it from
being
adopted by most, its simply 'the devil they know'.  I don't
think most
people see the need to climb another learning curve when
they can
survive with what they have.  I can't fault Windows users
for that, its
simply human nature.

> That's also why it has fewer problems with this
> sort of thing.  Security through obscurity.  What works
for Linux also
> works for the Mac.

Perhaps.  I would argue that the cost/benefit ratio is not
there for
your common virus author/cracker to target Linux users. 
Linux services
yes, users no.  This may be due to the fact that a Linux
user installing
or launching a virus is of little use unless they do so as
root.  This
is a task kept non-trivial in most linux distributions for
that very
reason.

> 
> I wouldn't go so far as to pin all the problems with XP
security on
> the OS,

So far you haven't pinned ANY of the problems with XP on the
OS.

>  your run-of-the mill Linux software is just as
security hole
> ridden and buggy as Microshaft junk. 

Reference?  That's a pretty bold claim and I've seen
conflicting
opinions on the subject.  What is true is the only people
who can repair
Windows problems are Microsoft.  That was one of the reasons
Fermi
National Lab finally adopted Linux, so they could fix any
problems they
needed fixed.

>  It's just that having to read a
> man page and compile a program holds most of the morons
back from
> installing harmful things on their computer.  
> With Windows it's just a
> point and a click to complete ownage.  I guarantee, the
more user
> friendly Linux becomes, the more insecure it will seem
as a result of
> the users.

Ubuntu is very user friendly and its not a point and click
away from 
ownage.  Ubuntu demands a password prior to do anything
unwise.  Any 
computer system that allows user configuration will always
suffer from 
user error.  

I guess I really don't see the point of your post unless it
was merely 
to raise the hackles of the 'linux geeks'.  If that was it,
I'm sorry 
I can't oblige.  

Carl Lundstedt
UNL



----
Husker Linux Users Group mailing list
To unsubscribe, send a message to huskerlug-requestfreelists.org
with a subject of UNSUBSCRIBE

I was unaware that Fermi used Linux at all (never really
crossed my mind).
But when you mentioned it, I had to do a quick look and it
appears that
Fermi actually has it's own Linux Distro:
http://w
ww-oss.fnal.gov/projects/fermilinux/
From their FAQ page it's based on (or _is_) RedHat
Enterprise.

quote:
 Fermi Linux LTS (Long Term Support) is in essence RedHat
Enterprise,
recompiled.  What we have done is taken the source code from
RedHat
Enterprise (in srpm form) and recompiled them.
/quote

Yes, this email is a little "off-topic", but that
statement intrigued me.

Paul

On 9/26/06, Carl Lundstedt <clundstunlserve.unl.edu> wrote:
>
> I've seen countless numbers of these debates through
the years, so I'm
> hesitant to reply, but since you posted it to our list
I feel compelled.
>
> On Tue, 2006-09-26 at 17:17 -0500, Charles Leslie
wrote:
> > Hey folks, I just subscribed to this forum and I
must say, reading all
> > the linux propaganda is amusing. 
> >
> > If you're not a computer moron, Windows XP works
wonderfully,
>
> Inflammatory language will not win you many friends. 
The implication
> here is that anyone who has troubles with XP is a
"computer moron".  I
> assure the last time installed Windows XP the fact it
kept losing the
> DVD drive after probing the hardware had nothing to do
with my computer
> knowledge.  The fact I had to possibly violate the DMCA
in order to
> install Windows XP does not inspire confidence.
>
> > running
> > Firefox, with no accessible services behind a
firewall.  With
> > automatic updates it takes less work to keep it up
to date than a
> > Linux box,
>
> Linux has had automatic updates since RedHat 7.  It
just as easy/hard to
> keep a modern linux distro up to snuff as it is XP.
>
> > and with additional security knowledge, you can
actually
> > get rid of the firewall and put it out in the
wild.
>
> I run almost all of my Linux boxes 'in the wild'
without firewalls, your
> point?
>
>
> >
> > Most of the problems are created by the lusers who
use unpatched
> > systems, while downloading spyware and trojans and
purposely running
> > them.
>
> Half true.  Users (again, lusers is a derogatory term
apparently used to
> incite a response from the reader) of XP are partially
to blame.  The
> fact that Windows was originally designed from a
'user=root' design
> paradigm (and the fact much of that philosophy remains
intact) is also
> at issue.  If I download a file to my Windows box and
execute it it
> should not be able, for instance, to change the
registry without my
> explicit consent.
>
> XP is better than older versions of Windows in that you
can cordon off a
> user and deny them admin.  Most people don't use this
feature because
> they are used to things being the way the were.  Also,
I've found it
> awkward to move back and forth to install software.
>
> > Fortunately Linux is too challenging for those
kinds of people
> > to use as of yet.
>
> Again you're implying Windows users who've had problems
are stupid.  I
> don't think that's true.
>
> I also don't think its Linux's complexity that keeps it
from being
> adopted by most, its simply 'the devil they know'.  I
don't think most
> people see the need to climb another learning curve
when they can
> survive with what they have.  I can't fault Windows
users for that, its
> simply human nature.
>
> > That's also why it has fewer problems with this
> > sort of thing.  Security through obscurity.  What
works for Linux also
> > works for the Mac.
>
> Perhaps.  I would argue that the cost/benefit ratio is
not there for
> your common virus author/cracker to target Linux users.
 Linux services
> yes, users no.  This may be due to the fact that a
Linux user installing
> or launching a virus is of little use unless they do so
as root.  This
> is a task kept non-trivial in most linux distributions
for that very
> reason.
>
> >
> > I wouldn't go so far as to pin all the problems
with XP security on
> > the OS,
>
> So far you haven't pinned ANY of the problems with XP
on the OS.
>
> >  your run-of-the mill Linux software is just as
security hole
> > ridden and buggy as Microshaft junk.
>
> Reference?  That's a pretty bold claim and I've seen
conflicting
> opinions on the subject.  What is true is the only
people who can repair
> Windows problems are Microsoft.  That was one of the
reasons Fermi
> National Lab finally adopted Linux, so they could fix
any problems they
> needed fixed.
>
> >  It's just that having to read a
> > man page and compile a program holds most of the
morons back from
> > installing harmful things on their computer.
> > With Windows it's just a
> > point and a click to complete ownage.  I
guarantee, the more user
> > friendly Linux becomes, the more insecure it will
seem as a result of
> > the users.
>
> Ubuntu is very user friendly and its not a point and
click away from
> ownage.  Ubuntu demands a password prior to do anything
unwise.  Any
> computer system that allows user configuration will
always suffer from
> user error.
>
> I guess I really don't see the point of your post
unless it was merely
> to raise the hackles of the 'linux geeks'.  If that was
it, I'm sorry
> I can't oblige.
>
> Carl Lundstedt
> UNL
>
>
>
> ----
> Husker Linux Users Group mailing list
> To unsubscribe, send a message to huskerlug-requestfreelists.org
> with a subject of UNSUBSCRIBE
>
>
>



----
Husker Linux Users Group mailing list
To unsubscribe, send a message to huskerlug-requestfreelists.org
with a subject of UNSUBSCRIBE

Fermilab's LTS linux is almost no more.  They're now pushing
their 
efforts into scientific linux (the successor to LTS).

Its my opinion that a lot of effort went into linux at
Fermilab after 
they dumped hundreds of thousands (perhaps millions) of
dollars into 
proprietary software (not just windows, but many DEC, SUN
and IBM 
products as well) and kept getting hung out to dry.  Dzero
(the 
experiment at FNAL that I got my PhD on) developed their
entire 
triggering software for run II on Windows NT only to see
Microsoft drop 
support for the OS prior to the run starting.  Their
triggering now runs 
on NT that's embedded into a RT linux environment.  To say
they got 
burned by the proprietary software model would be an
understatement.

Carl Lundstedt
UNL
> I was unaware that Fermi used Linux at all (never
really crossed my mind).
> But when you mentioned it, I had to do a quick look and
it appears that
> Fermi actually has it's own Linux Distro:
> http://w
ww-oss.fnal.gov/projects/fermilinux/
> >From their FAQ page it's based on (or _is_) RedHat
Enterprise.
>
> quote:
>  Fermi Linux LTS (Long Term Support) is in essence
RedHat Enterprise,
> recompiled.  What we have done is taken the source code
from RedHat
> Enterprise (in srpm form) and recompiled them.
> /quote
>
> Yes, this email is a little "off-topic", but
that statement intrigued me.
>
> Paul
>
>   


----
Husker Linux Users Group mailing list
To unsubscribe, send a message to huskerlug-requestfreelists.org
with a subject of UNSUBSCRIBE

On Tuesday 26 September 2006 5:17 pm, Charles Leslie wrote:
> Hey folks, I just subscribed to this forum and I must
say, reading all
> the linux propaganda is amusing. 
We do what we can!     After
all, we Linux users don't have $MILLIONS to 
spend counteracting Microsoft PR, paid sycophant journalists
and  "campaign 
contributions" to corrupt congressmen.

I posted this article because it represents the first, that
I've noticed, of a 
breed  of articles by PRO Windows websites that are negative
about XP.  It 
was only about six years  ago that a similar series of
articles from pro  
Windows websites  appeared trashing Win98 and W2K.  Back
then the purpose of 
the articles was to prepare Windows users for upgrading to
XP by giving them 
justification for doing so.  This article is trashing XP for
the same 
purpose: to justify an upgrade to VISTA.  Had this XP
article appeared at the 
same site just before XP was released it would have had an 
negative affect 
on the  adoption rate  of XP.


>
> If you're not a computer moron, Windows XP works
wonderfully, running
> Firefox, with no accessible services behind a firewall.
 With
> automatic updates it takes less work to keep it up to
date than a
> Linux box, and with additional security knowledge, you
can actually
> get rid of the firewall and put it out in the wild.

But, alas, it seems that a LOT of WIndows users are computer
morons, which is 
one reason why Microsoft has such big security problems. 
They don't know 
enough to keep their PC free from compromise.    Judging
from the expertise 
exhibited by the 300 or so windows users at work I'd say
that 95% of them 
have no clue as to the difference between the OS or an
application.  Most 
have trouble using Windows explorer.  They get by using
detailed instructions 
for specific programs.  If their task sequences get out of
order they are 
lost and the help desk has to set them back up at the
beginning.

 I have no problems running XP from behind my firewall on my
laptop, when I 
run XP, which is about once every 8 or 9 months.  On my
windows side I am 
careful to use only FireFox and Thunderbird, and I never
browse outside the 
specific set of sites that I visit.   I would never put XP
"out in the wild" 
sans firewall, nor will I ever use IE.    The reason is
simple:   the only 
holes  you KNOW about are the ones that Microsoft informs
you of when they 
announce a patch for one.  What you don't know is HOW LONG
your box has been 
at risk from a hole before its patch is released.  And, you
have no real clue 
as to the total number of UNPATCHED holes that plague your
security and has  
turned XP into swiss cheese.    Remember, before Microsoft
learns of a 
security hole a batch of windows users have to get infected,
the infection 
analyzed and a patch created, posted and installed.  The
same is true of 
viruses made for Windows.   I appreciate your volunteering
for such hazardous 
duty!!! 

>
> Most of the problems are created by the lusers who use
unpatched
> systems, while downloading spyware and trojans and
purposely running
> them.  

Very true.

> Fortunately Linux is too challenging for those kinds of
people 
> to use as of yet.  

Very false.  Have you actually used a recent  Linux distro,
say MEPIS, 
PCLinuxOS, Ubuntu, KNOPPIX  5.0, or XANDROS 3.0???   My
favorite, MEPIS 6.0, 
takes a 20 minute install. After that it operates by point 
& click, just 
like XP, except that  KDEE 3.5.x is a much more powerful and
easier to use 
desktop than XP. 



> That's also why it has fewer problems with this sort of
thing.  
> Security through obscurity.  What works for Linux also 
> works for the Mac.

Very false.  

Since 1992 there are been only 6 effective Trojans/viruses
for Linux.  The 
last was Slapper, which infected Apache servers but was
quickly stamped out,   
in the fall of 2003, IIRC, and it infected a total of  less
than 50,000 
computers world-wide, but mostly in eastern europe where a
large group of 
people were running a particular commercial linux distro
that installed the 
user as root. 

Symantec listed about 400-500 Linux malware but I drilled
down on about 125 of 
them only to discover that they were WIndows JPG viruses
that had, as their 
only connection to Linux, the use of Linux in their name. 
This, I believe, 
was purposely done by the anti-virus houses in order to
create a Linux market 
for their software.  They were depending on the fear and
ignorance of Linux 
newbies freshly migrating to Linux and carrying with the the
false 
assumption/fud/idea that Linux was as susceptible to viruses
as WIndows is.  
After Microsoft announced that it was installing its own
anti-virus software 
into is OS the anti-virus companies became panic stricken
and really pumped 
up the FUD, but it was to no avail.  Those who have used
Linux for more than 
6 months KNOW by experience that they never encounter Linux
viruses or 
Trojans.  In fact, in EIGHT years of running Linux I have
NEVER encountered 
any virus or Trojan of any kind.  For fun I used to install
WINE and then 
execute the payloads on several of the dozens of windows
emails that I 
received daily.  It was interesting to see where, in the
wine directory 
structure and register the bugs planted their venom.  Then I
would clean out 
their trash and play with another.  It got old after awhile
because almost 
ALL of the viruses are variations of about a dozen themes,
each with minor 
changes in their signatures, which is all they had to do to
fool all of the 
anti-virus software.

 MEPIS, like most Linux distros of the  last two years
automatically install 
firewalls  and anti-virus software, although I see no reason
to use the 
latter.

The "Security through obscurity" argument is an
oft quoted  MS FUD first put 
forward, IIRC,  by George Ou.   First, it is Microsoft who
peddles binaries 
and  gives  NO ACCESS  to critical Windows source code. 
And, what code they 
do expose to special clients  cannot be proven to be part of
the released 
binary because without the entire source code one cannot
compile a OS binary 
and match it against that OS binary which Microsoft sells.  
Microsoft's 
secrecy concerning their source  is the classic definition
of "Security by 
obscurity".   

Linux source code, on the other hand, is TOTALLY OPEN.  You
can download the 
latest Linux kernel  source, or any previous version,, and
recompile it.  You 
can examine each and every line of code in the kernel source
for possible 
security holes.  There are folks who continually do that.  
You can ALSO 
download the source for all the Linux distros and examine
them, too.     
THERE IS NO OBSCURITY OF THE LINUX  KERNEL,  DISTROS or FOSS
 source code.      

One would think that exposing the source for the Linux
kernel, distros and 
FOSS applications would reveal a huge number of holes which
the bad guys 
would  immediately exploit, making Linux the most insecure
OS on the planet,  
but such exploitations do not appear.  While Microsoft
spinsters FUD stories 
about FireFox being more insecure  than IE, the truth  is 
that NO critical 
holes for FireFox exist, which is something that  can't be
said about iE.

It is MICROSOFT which has threatened  security firms with
lawsuites  IF they 
publically  announce any OS holes they discover.  it is
MICROSOFT which keeps  
secret the security holes they are aware of, leaving the
users of Microsoft 
Windows hanging, slowly  twisting in the winds of
insecurity, their data 
sticking out like a bank  with its vault setting in the
parking lot  with its 
doors  open, unguarded.

On the other side of the security coind it is FOSS
applications which 
ENCOURAGE  immediate  posting and announcing of ANY holes
ANYONE discovers, 
as soon as they make the discovery.  All  the FOSS
applications have bug 
tracking  web sites where anyone can post any bugs/holes
they find and anyone 
else can check for postings about the particular software
they are using in 
order to determine  if they are exposed, and what they can
do about it. 

>
> I wouldn't go so far as to pin all the problems with XP
security on
> the OS, your run-of-the mill Linux software is just as
security hole
> ridden and buggy as Microshaft junk. 

I wasn''t pinning  all the security problems in XP on XP, I
just posted an 
article by a pro-Windows site which was doing that.   But,
out of curiosity, 
if you  can't blame XP for its own problems what do you
blame.  Name the "X" 
that makes XP so insecure, if it is not XP itself?


> It's just that having to read a  man page and compile a
program holds 
> most of the morons back from  installing harmful things
on their 
> computer. 

Reading  man pages to compile programs?  What are you
talking about?  You 
write  as though you haven't played with or used a Linux
distro since RH 5.0, 
six or seven years ago, or you tried and failed to install
Gentoo, a distro 
for gurus that does require, in one of its several modes of
installation, 
compiling  everything.   Download and burn 
PCLInuxOS-p993a-big-daddy, and 
run it as a LiveCD,  then tell me how much compiling you had
 to do.

>With Windows it's just a  point and a click to complete
ownage. 


My MEPIS-6.0 install (20 minutes) is also Point'n&Click
to complete OWNAGE.  
You, however,  do  not OWN  XP,    You are leasing  it and
the will and 
pleasure of  Microsoft.  Re-read the XP EULA  and see how
many rights you've  
given  up and what few you have remaining.  The VISTA/MP-10
EULAS and DRM  
take away even more, DICTATING TO YOU what you can and
cannot do with your 
own PC.   Running VISTA you don't control you own PC any
more.

My MEPIS distro accesses a repository containing about
20,000 applications.  I 
can download and  install, or uninstall any of them with a
few mouse clicks.  
My system automatically  tells me when there are upgrades or
patches 
available.  I decide which ones I want to apply and pin 
those I do not want.  
I choose not to use automatic  updates because most are not
for security 
reasons but for feature upgrades or fixes that do not relate
to security.

> I guarantee, the more user  friendly Linux becomes, the
more insecure it
> will seem as a result of  the users.

You have no way of guaranteeing that because all of the 
distros I've 
mentioned are either as equally user friendly as XP, or more
so.

User friendliness does NOT equal insecurity for either 
WIndows or Linux.  
Insecurity is due to poorly written  code, for which WIndows
is  notorious.

Also, IF security woes were in direct proportion to
market-share, which is 
what  is another common  MS FUD implies,  FOSS software
should ALREADY  
exhibit the highest infection rates.  Currently, 70% of
Internet servers are 
running FOSS and only 28% are running Microsoft, yet  only a
tiny fraction of 
FOSS servers are sources of infection.  That vast majority
of spam bots, 
zombies, etc, are from that 28% which runs Microsoft apps
and from clueless 
Windows desktop users.
GreyGeek


>
> On 9/26/06, Jim Worrest <jworresthuskeraccess.com> wrote:
> >         Ah, just article to pass around to Windows
users!  Hey, the
> > Windows that I most often use is Windows 98SE! 
---Jim
>


----
Husker Linux Users Group mailing list
To unsubscribe, send a message to huskerlug-requestfreelists.org
with a subject of UNSUBSCRIBE

>> That's also why it has fewer problems with this
sort of thing.  
>> Security through obscurity.  What works for Linux
also 
>> works for the Mac.
>>     
>
> Very false.  
>
> Since 1992 there are been only 6 effective
Trojans/viruses for Linux.  The 
> last was Slapper, which infected Apache servers but was
quickly stamped out,   
> in the fall of 2003, IIRC, and it infected a total of 
less than 50,000 
> computers world-wide, but mostly in eastern europe
where a large group of 
> people were running a particular commercial linux
distro that installed the 
> user as root. . .
>   

You make good points in your response, but you're missing
the real issue
here.  He is saying that less malware is targeted at Linux
because it
isn't as widely used as Windows (hence targeting malware at
Windows has
a greater impact).  This really can't be denied (well, for
home
computers if not servers).

Anyway, please don't feed the trolls (as you did in your
response, not
your original post).  This list is about coming together to
form a
support community for Linux and related issues, not debating
the
benefits of Linux vs. Windows.  This goes for Charles as
well - please
don't use inflammatory language (for examples of what's
inflammatory
about your post, see Carl's reply).  As I just said, that's
not what
this list is about.

Luke Wilson

----
Husker Linux Users Group mailing list
To unsubscribe, send a message to huskerlug-requestfreelists.org
with a subject of UNSUBSCRIBE

>they dumped hundreds of thousands (perhaps millions) of
dollars into
>proprietary software (not just windows, but many DEC,
SUN and IBM
>products as well) and kept getting hung out to dry.
*clip*
>To say they got
>burned by the proprietary software model would be an
understatement.
This type of "getting burned" when vendors change
versions or are dropped
completely happens more often then it should.  This is the
saving grace I
see from FOSS, but the level of knowledge/courage needed to
take a currently
unsupported program and make it usable can be quite
staggering.

Hmm... I thought I was going to have a point in there
someplace, but a 12
hour day at work today has sapped my mind.

>They're now pushing their
>efforts into scientific linux (the successor to LTS).

Looks like you're referring to this website:
https://www.scientif
iclinux.org/
I'll end with a great line from their FAQ:

Q. Why won't you say the name of the commercial enterprise
distribution S.L.
is built from?

A. That name is trademarked.  The easiest way to keep away
from all
trademark problems, is to completely avoid the name.
We believe that most readers are able to figure out which
commercial
enterprise linux distribution we are talking about.

Paul

On 9/26/06, Carl Lundstedt <clundstunlserve.unl.edu> wrote:
>
> Fermilab's LTS linux is almost no more.  They're now
pushing their
> efforts into scientific linux (the successor to LTS).
>
> Its my opinion that a lot of effort went into linux at
Fermilab after
> they dumped hundreds of thousands (perhaps millions) of
dollars into
> proprietary software (not just windows, but many DEC,
SUN and IBM
> products as well) and kept getting hung out to dry. 
Dzero (the
> experiment at FNAL that I got my PhD on) developed
their entire
> triggering software for run II on Windows NT only to
see Microsoft drop
> support for the OS prior to the run starting.  Their
triggering now runs
> on NT that's embedded into a RT linux environment.  To
say they got
> burned by the proprietary software model would be an
understatement.
>
> Carl Lundstedt
> UNL
> > I was unaware that Fermi used Linux at all (never
really crossed my
> mind).
> > But when you mentioned it, I had to do a quick
look and it appears that
> > Fermi actually has it's own Linux Distro:
> > http://w
ww-oss.fnal.gov/projects/fermilinux/
> > >From their FAQ page it's based on (or _is_)
RedHat Enterprise.
> >
> > quote:
> >  Fermi Linux LTS (Long Term Support) is in essence
RedHat Enterprise,
> > recompiled.  What we have done is taken the source
code from RedHat
> > Enterprise (in srpm form) and recompiled them.
> > /quote
> >
> > Yes, this email is a little "off-topic",
but that statement intrigued
> me.
> >
> > Paul
> >
> >
>
>
> ----
> Husker Linux Users Group mailing list
> To unsubscribe, send a message to huskerlug-requestfreelists.org
> with a subject of UNSUBSCRIBE
>
>
>



----
Husker Linux Users Group mailing list
To unsubscribe, send a message to huskerlug-requestfreelists.org
with a subject of UNSUBSCRIBE

On Tuesday 26 September 2006 9:35 pm, Luke Wilson wrote:
> You make good points in your response, but you're
missing the real issue
> here. =A0He is saying that less malware is targeted at
Linux because it
> isn't as widely used as Windows (hence targeting
malware at Windows has
> a greater impact). =A0This really can't be denied
(well, for home
> computers if not servers).

I didn't miss that point.  Check the part of my response
concerning FOSS an=
d=20
the Internet, where Microsoft controls less than 28% of the
servers but=20
accounts for essentially ALL of the malware launchers and
launchings.  =20

As far as him being a troll, I believe he truly believed
what he wrote and =
was=20
giving his opinion.  After all, what he wrote is
"Sacred Doctrine" among th=
e=20
Windows users who have drunk the Microsoft koolaid.   I hear
it from MSCEs =
at=20
work all the time.  Even when presented with irrefutable
facts to the=20
contrary they shrug them off and continue their fanboi-ism. 
 it's a faith,=
=20
by any definition.
GreyGeek

----
Husker Linux Users Group mailing list
To unsubscribe, send a message to huskerlug-requestfreelists.org
with a subject of UNSUBSCRIBE