AutoDesk has been squabbling with Tim Vernor for several years now.
He just wants to sell some spare copies of AutoCAD on ebay.
AutoDesk has said that violates their license.
Tim said he never agreed to their license (the packages are unused[1]).

A Federal court has ruled that AutoDesk is wrong and that
according to the First-Sale Doctrine which has been established law since 1908
http://google.com/search?q=Bobbs-Merrill+First-Sale
the licenses are crap.
http://google.com/search?q=AutoDesk+Vernor+"Western.District.of.Washington"

The question you're asking yourself is
"How does this affect M$'s End-User License Agreements?"
It doesn't.  M$ has already been thru this and their response was DRM
(Windows Product Activation and Windows Genuine DISAdvantage).
Until a court rules that those are violations of this same law,
ain't nothing you can do about M$'s current crop except boycott them;
the alternative is giving money to M$
then waiting for them to use their remote kill switch.
Big hint:  At one time, 22 percent of WGA checks
called what they saw a bogus Windoze install.[2]
Do you think that 1 of every 5 people is running pirated Windoze?
Do you think pirates would be stupid enough to install that remote kill switch?
Do you think they would be stupid enough to allow their systems to be scanned?
Bottom line:  Another massive M$ failure.

The next question is "Are there any teeth behind this AutoDesk decision?"
We'll have to wait and see on that one.

Note: Though there are several strong analogs of AutoCAD in the Unix/Linux world
as well as some in the (cross-platform) Free Software realm,
AutoDesk remains a dominant player (via inertia)--and it is Windoze-only.

Note also:  AutoCAD started as a Unix app.


[1] We could get into a whole thing here
about licenses that you aren't allowed to read until AFTER you've paid for an item
--but I'll let that go for now.

[2] Indeed, in their initial implementation the number was 42 percent.
What words are there to describe something that is WORSE than a massive failure?

Tip: Run a free scan for common Windows errors ad

re: Another serious blow delivered to the validity of EULAs Wednesday, October 7, 2009 at 6:42 pm Posted by Steve (23810 messages posted) I think the World average of one in five XP installs are Pirated sounds sound. In places like Asia the pirated versions are probably 95 or higher percent. In USA it is probably pretty low since the major PC manufactures are regulated. [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: Another serious blow delivered to the validity of EULAs Wednesday, October 7, 2009 at 10:20 pm Posted by gewg_ (4444 messages posted) Steve wrote: |I think the World average of one in five XP installs are Pirated sounds [right??]. | Again, who is going to connect to a M$ server knowing WGA will catch him? Back at the start, M$ had the kill switch activated --until they saw how inaccurate it was...and they can turn it back on any time. |In places like Asia the pirated versions are probably 95 or higher percent. | Maybe 95% of *Windoze* boxes, but the installed Windoze base there is less (outside S.Korea[1]). Linux has better support for multiple languages. ...not to mention superior security (I don't think of Asians as stupid). Linux is also a better software development platform--even for 8 year olds ...and I DO think of Asians as the next wave there. Outside English-speaking countries, Free(dom) Software is becoming the norm. ...and have you seen what's happening with the London Stock Exchange? Big hint: Their 100% M$ stack fell on its face and they are replacing it with---wait for it---Linux (for less than half the price). Most folks are also discovering that WINE runs their Windoze-compatible apps as well as Windoze can--sometimes BETTER (Vista). ...and it's easier to just have your Linux Package Manager install software for you than it is to go visit your local warez guy then do installs the Windoze way. |In USA it is probably pretty low since the major PC manufactures are regulated. | Not so much regulated as they are M$'s bitches. ...and as long as the machine ships with *some* OS, they're kosher. You've also overlooked e.g. BitTorrent, x86 Macs running Windoze, and vendors who ship machines with only a FreeDOS CD--or installed Linux. With computers getting ever smaller (can you say ARM?), that last one is becoming increasingly common. [1] from the Usenet Archive: South Korea has trapped itself with an expensive single-source technology. The original article: cache of http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/biz/2009/09/123_52401.html Man, I hate it when dudes can't properly spell the name of what they're covering (no hyphen). [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: Another serious blow delivered to the validity of EULAs Thursday, October 8, 2009 at 6:58 am Posted by Steve (23810 messages posted) I would love to see the Linux guys consolidate the distros into a couple of flavors. Think Linux will have a hard time catching on with so many versions. Each version I tried had a big learning curve unique to the version. The average Clueless Windows User can go from Windows 95 straight to Windows 7 and get along fine. [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: Another serious blow delivered to the validity of EULAs Thursday, October 8, 2009 at 11:15 am Posted by gewg_ (4444 messages posted) Steve wrote: |I would love to see the Linux guys consolidate the distros into a couple of flavors. | Reminds me of Apple's "1984" commercial. The fact is that diversity in an ecosystem is a Good Thing(tm); it spurs innovation and minimizes the bad stuff associated with monocultures. The most obvious divide in the Linux world is .RPM vs .DEB (RedHat's package management system vs Debian's). The slight differences in directory structures is another point folks grouse about. There is, however, an app called alien that allows you to install apps built for one packaging system into a non-native environment so neither of these points has been a serious issue for years. (The only analog of alien I can think of in the Windoze world is KernelEx --and that's not even close to the same thing.) There's also LSB which is meant to address what you have indicated. It has seen mixed success. There's also a distro that has a more Windoze-like directory structure: cache of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GoboLinux#Overview Linux is about CHOICE. Obviously, some people are more comfortable with that than others. |Think Linux will have a hard time catching on with so many versions. | People do more radical things than that daily --like switching back & forth between Windoze and Mac-- so yours is the usual argument that is easily blunted with empirical evidence e.g. folks moving between distros at work to accomplish different tasks on different workstations. When you look at all the little gizmos that Windoze users install on their boxes to make their lives easier, then compare box-to-box, you'll see lots of variation; I don't see that as significantly different from *n?x boxes. Actually, the fact that you can get a Linux distro that is pre-tweaked to someone's preferences (and you can seek out a distro whose defaults are similar to your own prefs) AND that you can test drive that setup *before* installing it make that ecosystem quite powerful--in truth, more friendly than any other. Here's a spin of Fedora that is an amazing example and presents a strong rebuttal to your points: cache of http://chitlesh.fedorapeople.org/FEL/download.html Mythbuntu, which competes with Windows Media Center, is another fine example. Android, which competes with Windows Mobile is yet another. |Each version I tried had a big learning curve unique to the version. | When Mac and Linux users are dropped into a Windoze ecosystem, you generally hear the same thing--often louder. "The only intuitive interface is the nipple; everything else is learned." Mostly, your resolve is determined by your commitment to Freedom. My points about South Korea show the other side of the coin (slavery where you pay a premium for your own chains). |The average Clueless Windows User |can go from Windows 95 straight to Windows 7 and get along fine. | I keep hearing that--but then I see the Windoze forums full of questions. ...and one of the more telling items I've seen lately: from the Usenet Archive: Most Popular Apps by Platform The developer apps in the bottom list reinforce my point about Asians using Free Software to dominate that field in the coming years. ...and since Nokia bought TrollTech and freed-up the license on that widget set (Qt), it's become simpler than ever to write cross-platform apps --very much the write once, run anywhere ideal we've been waiting for. [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: Another serious blow delivered to the validity of EULAs Thursday, October 8, 2009 at 11:47 am Posted by Steve (23810 messages posted) The Windows Forum does have Traffic, but so do the Apple, and Linux Forums. I remember a couple Years back I was browsing a Linux Forum for some problem I had, and there were a couple hundred Threads on just how to upgrade from Firefox 1.0 to Firefox 1.5. Most were so Clueless they did not realize the added security Firefox 1.5 had over 1.0 was mostly irrelevant since they were using Linux to start with. [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: Another serious blow delivered to the validity of EULAs Thursday, October 8, 2009 at 1:57 pm Posted by gewg_ (4444 messages posted) Steve wrote: |[...]browsing a Linux Forum |[...]Threads on just how to upgrade from Firefox 1.0 to Firefox 1.5. |Most were so Clueless they did not realize the added security Firefox 1.5 had |over 1.0 was mostly irrelevant since they were using Linux to start with. Well, it's not unwise to plug as many holes as possible. There have been several gotcha stories lately about "Linux botnets" --though the meme is too small to apply the same term as M$ mass-infections. (Apparently, admins who use Linux are stupidly transmitting passwords in the clear.) ...and the worrywarts you saw were undoubtedly former Windoze users. 8-)) There are 2 terrible habits that M$ users form: 1) Allow poorly-written apps that shouldn't need admin privileges on their boxes. 1a) Grant those the elevated privileges their sucky developers have required. (Obviously, doesn't apply to 9x where EVERYTHING runs as root. 8-| ) 2) Download lots of band-aids to "solve" the multitude of flaws in the basic install. It reminds one of the meme of popping pills to get healthy. (...and trying to treat a series of ax wounds with band-aids is a poor plan anyway --not to mention the old close-the-gate-after-they've-bolted thing.) There is also a 3rd element--but that has less to do with the user's discretion: An operating system that passes out elevated privileges to processes like it was handing out Halloween candy. (...and so many folks don't know about e.g. BlackViper's guide to services.) So, when users finally get an ecosystem with REAL security, they're still gun-shy. I may have posted this before. It goes to the heart of the problem. cache of http://www.psychocats.net/ubuntucat/antivirusculture [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: Another serious blow delivered to the validity of EULAs Saturday, October 17, 2009 at 5:37 am Posted by sekirt (297 messages posted) gewg You sure have gotten nasty from when you first started posting here. :) Simply: You're wrong about some things. I have plenty of computing experience and I don't choose to switch to Linux - or Mac for that matter. I use IE exclusively and don't like FF. I keep my security settings in IE even lower than recommended and I have never had a problem from back in 2002 when I was posting here to now with Vista. Never had a virus. Never ever - so stop scaring people. Not everyone gets into trouble, even if there are bad people out there. Unfortunately, the nature of a troubleshooting forum brings out only those that do get infected. So your view is skewed. And yes many computer operators should pack their computer back in the box because they are idiots. I don't do P2P. That seems to be the root of your article...a primary cause of infection. (http://www.psychocats.net/ubuntucat/antivirusculture). I am careful about what emails I open. I seldom get spam anyway with the filtering that email providers currently use. I am not challenging the bad guys, it is just an ongoing experiment to see how long I can avoid infections just using common sense. I used to use Spybot and even uninstalled that years ago because it never found anything. (Well, it found cookies that would get deleted in my ordinary cleaning of junk files). Until Linux is an over-the-counter established OS, I'll probably never switch. It is an unknown. I am not going to experiment. If I had an extra computer that I didn't care about, maybe then. I suspect the same is true of many people - your "sales pitch" is far from convincing because it just sounds like you hate MS and nothing more. I think MS has made what most people want. I think most are relatively satisfied with Windows. I think many people hear people like you say "Windows Sucks" everytime something goes wrong. Can't tell you how many times I have heard people say that and had absolutely no basis for saying it. They had XP and now have Vista. They have some problem with, for example, setting up Windows Mail. Then they add how they never had that problem with Outlook Express. They are virtually identical programs and are setup the same exact way and the same way any email client would be setup. You need POP3 and SMTP settings, etc; But they hear that Vista sucks and mimic the cry. They have no basis for saying it. Programs I have added to Windows are programs to make life easier for me. I've probably added around 100 programs (maybe more). I am not married to Microsoft and I don't necessarily like all their apps. I don't download most updates. Don't download "band-aids" as you put it. How do I even know if my programs would run on Linux? The assortment of freeware for Windows is amazing and you can find a program for just about whatever you want. Can't say that about Linux or Mac. I want that choice. According to you, since Linux is so superior and basically free, there shouldn't be any Windows Operating Systems in Asia. Ha! Popping (the right) pills to get healthy or keep living sounds completely normal to me. What is the alternative? There is no way for a person to stay completely healthy without parts breaking down for an entire lifetime. Obviously pills alone are not 100% the answer but they are a necessity. There are no axe wounds in Windows. The closest would be to just format and reinstall. Or install your backup (if you have one, everyone should). sekirt On Thursday, October 8, 2009 at 1:57 pm, gewg_ wrote: >Steve wrote: >|[...]browsing a Linux Forum >|[...]Threads on just how to upgrade from Firefox 1.0 to Firefox 1.5. >|Most were so Clueless they did not realize the added security Firefox 1.5 had >|over 1.0 was mostly irrelevant since they were using Linux to start with. > >Well, it's not unwise to plug as many holes as possible. >There have been several gotcha stories lately about "Linux botnets" >--though the meme is too small to apply the same term as M$ mass-infections. >(Apparently, admins who use Linux are stupidly transmitting passwords in the clear.) > >...and the worrywarts you saw were undoubtedly former Windoze users. 8-)) > >There are 2 terrible habits that M$ users form: > >1) Allow poorly-written apps that shouldn't need admin privileges on their boxes. >1a) Grant those the elevated privileges their sucky developers have required. >(Obviously, doesn't apply to 9x where EVERYTHING runs as root. 8-| ) > >2) Download lots of band-aids to "solve" the multitude of flaws in the basic install. >It reminds one of the meme of popping pills to get healthy. >(...and trying to treat a series of ax wounds with band-aids is a poor plan anyway >--not to mention the old close-the-gate-after-they've-bolted thing.) > >There is also a 3rd element--but that has less to do with the user's discretion: >An operating system that passes out elevated privileges to processes >like it was handing out Halloween candy. >(...and so many folks don't know about e.g. BlackViper's guide to services.) > >So, when users finally get an ecosystem with REAL security, they're still gun-shy. > >I may have posted this before. It goes to the heart of the problem. >cache >of http://www.psychocats.net/ubuntucat/antivirusculture [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: Another serious blow delivered to the validity of EULAs Saturday, October 17, 2009 at 2:05 pm Posted by gewg_ (4444 messages posted) sekirt wrote: |You sure have gotten nasty from when you first started posting here. :) | Hey, Old Timer. Been a while since I've seen you around these parts. Yeah, over time I've certainly become less tolerant of 4th-rate technology. |Simply: You're wrong about some things. | Lately, Steve and and Arminius have been keeping me on my toes WRT my accuracy. I can usually give examples of how I'm right. Kiwi showed up again after a protracted absence and questioned my positions too. |I have plenty of computing experience and I don't choose to switch to Linux |- or Mac for that matter. | ...and some people still drive cars with clutches. Most folks go for the easier solution. Horses for courses. The question in this forum is "Should you continue to use a 10 year old OS that wasn't so great when it was released, and hasn't been supported for over 3 years --and when you switch, should you give money for the replacement (and end up with a lot of the same old flaws)?". ...then there's the "won't work on my old hardware" thing with newer M$ stuff. With my solution: A whole flock of birds, 1 stone. |I use IE exclusively and don't like FF. | Horses for courses. Maybe you've missed my posts about how there are many Web developer groups who are dropping support for IE6 (the latest version of that which works under Win9x). Even the latest (NT-only) versions suck WRT standard-compliance (Acid3) and WRT security (CERT's 2004 advisory still stands; NONE of the holes identified have EVER been closed--in ANY version). Using IE yourself is one thing; advising others to do that without full instructions how to harden it[1] is derelict. The instructions for how to get a secure Firefox or Opera install: Install it. Use it. [1] Even then, CERT says that it still sucks 7 ways to Sunday. |I keep my security settings in IE even lower than recommended | The average user doesn't know the first thing about IE's settings. That those even exist would be news to them. The DEFAULT install of Firefox or Opera is FAR more secure. |and I have never had a problem | Assuming that the experience of an aware, proactive user will be representative across the spectrum of users is foolish. Software should INSTALL in a secure mode. |from back in 2002 when I was posting here to now with Vista. | Newer versions have marginally better security --but even that pales in comparison to EVERYTHING ELSE. |Never had a virus. Never ever - so stop scaring people. |Not everyone gets into trouble, even if there are bad people out there. | To expand on my *settings* comment, most folks use their OSes in the default out-of-the-box installed condition. With Win9x, that default condition is simply abysmal. Add to that that security updates for it stopped over 3 years ago. |Unfortunately, the nature of a troubleshooting forum |brings out only those that do get infected. | That's right. You speak to the audience that shows up. |So your view is skewed. | ...to reflect the reality that we see with Joe Average. The method I advocate also takes less knowledge and less effort. |And yes many computer operators |should pack their computer back in the box because they are idiots. | Most users should be using a computing environment whose out-of-the-box condition is secure by default. Those are readily available FOR FREE. The opposite side of that coin is often called Defective By Design. |I don't do P2P. That seems to be the root of your article | Not at all. The number of security holes in Windoze is legion. ...and, after my *Most Popular Apps by Platform* link, this thread went a bit off-track. That item **does** speak volumes about the relative merits of the 2 ecosystems. Actually, I started out talking about laws and FREEDOM, specifically, EULAs and the First-Sale Doctrine. If some corporation wants to RENT their wares, they have to state *a time limit* in the agreement with the other party; everything else is a SALE and once sold it's not that corp's property any more --the corp can't tell the purchaser what he can and can't do with it. Free Software doesn't have any of that nonsense. Charging for ones and zeros is so last-century. The model for the 21st Century is selling SUPPORT. |...a primary cause of infection. |(http://www.psychocats.net/ubuntucat/antivirusculture). | I was recently in an engineering newsgroup and one of the guys wanted to know how he could put a presentation on a thumbdrive and get it to AutoRun. In the non-M$ world this would be of no consequence. In the Windoze world, this is an invitation to an infection--especially with Win9x. The contrast between *n?x and the M$ ecosystem is night-and-day; POSIX boxes, used in their default state just don't get pwned. When a *n?x box DOES get infected (yes, *n?x also has stupid users), the only thing that gets infected is THAT user's personal directory --the OS remains unharmed. |I am careful about what emails I open. |I seldom get spam anyway with the filtering that email providers currently use. | Spam is annoying, but it isn't a security threat--on a properly designed system (Linux guys DON'T have to worry about infections). |[...]I used to use Spybot |and even uninstalled that years ago because it never found anything. | Linux guys look at the hoops that Windoze guys jump thru and say "WTF??". |Until Linux is an over-the-counter established OS, I'll probably never switch. | Dell offers pre-installed Linux; HP too; Acer too... It's time you came out of your dark hole into the sunlight. ...and the desktop is becoming an ever-tinier fraction of computing. The majority of sales are mobile devices; ARM is becoming the hardware platform and Linux is the software platform. Windoze doesn't run on ARM. Last I checked, Debian Linux supported 11 hardware architectures (they've dropped some or the number would be higher). Nokia's upcoming N900 phone is the wave of the future: A real Linux install. Fully hackable. Want a Linux app on it? Download it and install. No sweat. |It is an unknown. I am not going to experiment. | Spoken like a true Luddite. Linux has been mainstream since at least Ubuntu 8.04 (April 2008). |If I had an extra computer that I didn't care about, maybe then. | I recommend that folks put Linux on a separate drive. One big reason for the separate drive is that M$ is stupid and likes to nuke other OSes. The inverse condition where Linux auto-demolishes Windoze installs? You just never hear about that happening in the Linux forums. The truth is that it doesn't take a separate computer to run Linux. In fact, Linux does all the heavy lifting and sets up everything on your old box --dual boot right beside your current OS. ...and like M$-centric Luddites everywhere, apparently you aren't aware that you DON'T have to *install* Linux to try it. UNLIKE M$'s low grade of junk (which, INSTEAD of concentrating on MAKING IT EASY FOR THE USER, concentrates on making it hard to pirate M$ wares), almost all Linux CDs can be booted to a fully-functional Linux desktop. There are also lots of non-Luddites who have gotten tired of dealing with the weaknesses of Windoze and the accompanying monthly chore and have installed Linux on their parents' boxes. The parents can do all the stuff they used to do and have never missed a beat. Some parents do it themselves. Again, no sweat. from the Usenet Archive -- Linux Mint 6 is easy --and that's not even the latest version (which is easier still). ...and there are hundreds of millions of schoolchildren who don't seem to have a huge problem understanding Linux. Mama used to call me a "food-foolish" because I'd say that I didn't like a food --even though I'd never tasted it. Same deal with M$ fanboyz and Linux. |I suspect the same is true of many people |- your "sales pitch" is far from convincing |because it just sounds like you hate MS and nothing more. | The problem with M$ zealots is that they are usually ONLY aware of M$. If they would peek out of their M$ caves now and then, they would see the world as it is. More and more countries and municipalities are mandating Free Software, often for cost reasons but many for CONTROL reasons as well. (Sending money offshore and being beholding to one corporation is increasingly see as foolish.) Open Source Software is often called Free(dom) Software. Outside the English-speaking countries (USA, UK, AU), Linux is especially growing by leaps and bounds. OTOH, the USA-like countries are paying too much for their computing needs (think: buying M$ licenses instead of increasing teachers' pay) and those countries are slipping technologically as their software developer communities remain mired in the past. Corporations are moving to Linux as well (especially in these hard times). Burlington Coat Factory and Ernie Ball, Inc. have been off the Windoze treadmill all of this century. |I think MS has made what most people want. | Right. Most people want single-source easily-infected systems. |I think most are relatively satisfied with Windows. | Most people still use the same soap their mothers used on them. The boiling-a-frog metaphor comes to mind here. |I think many people hear people like you |say "Windows Sucks" everytime something goes wrong. |Can't tell you how many times I have heard people say that |and had absolutely no basis for saying it. | Unlike you, some people have actually TRIED non-M$ products and actually have a basis for comparison. Not having to constantly worry about their OS getting infected is what most folks are seeking. Outside of that, OSes and productivity software are commodity items (and FREE beats any other price in most folks' books). Most folks are simply ignorant of their choices. There is a move afoot in the EU to mandate a la carte price for computer sales; when folks see FREE Linux beside $54 (or whatever) Windoze, the choice will be obvious for most. |They had XP and now have Vista. | This is a 98 forum. People who come here are running something that is 10 years old and hasn't seen updates for over 3 years. I'm sure the thought of having to buy all new hardware to run new software isn't appealing for most folks either. Linux offers something that is up to date and will run on old hardware and it's FREE. |They have some problem with, for example, setting up Windows Mail. | Horses for courses. Doesn't speak well of their ability to choose software. Having all your data in a single file doesn't seem bright to me. |Then they add how they never had that problem with Outlook Express. | I've seen an overwhelming number of folks with real problems using what is by far the most-easily-infected mail client --even more problems than is proportionate with that PoS's market share. |Programs I have added to Windows are programs to make life easier for me. | Bet you paid for some of those. Again: FREE Software--gratis AND libre aka Free(dom)ware. Windoze guys have a really hard time wrapping their heads around that. |I've probably added around 100 programs (maybe more). |I am not married to Microsoft | ...said the frog in the water whose temperature is steadily increasing. When those apps are ported to platforms other than Windoze, THEN you're not married to M$. When you can use all those apps without installing them (Registry again), and can carry a thumbdrive from box to box to do that, then we'll talk. |The assortment of freeware for Windows is amazing | Free(dom) Software has that and more. A lot of Free(dom) Software is also cross-platform; it works the same when you switch between OSes. ...and again: Getting/installing/updating Free Software apps using a Linux "package manager" makes installing Windoze-compatible apps look completely brain-dead. |and you can find a program for just about whatever you want. |Can't say that about Linux or Mac. | Again, your knowledge of the Free Software ecosystem is woefully inadequate. http://google.com/search?q=site:freshmeat.net/projects Your Mac knowledge isn't even slightly impressive either. 1999 called and wants its tired old myths back. |According to you, since Linux is so superior and basically free, | Not "basically"--TOTALLY free (Gratis AND Libre) |there shouldn't be any Windows Operating Systems in Asia. Ha! | Not my position at all. There are some people who have to settle for 2nd-best. There are still apps (dumb developers) that *only* run under real Windoze. (The WINE project isn't 100.0% compliant quite yet.) A monoculture of only Linux would not be a good thing either. I do believe that of all the OSes that exist (mostly *n?x: BSD, Solaris, OS X...), M$'s junk is the syphilitic old maid at the ball. |Popping (the right) pills to get healthy or keep living |sounds completely normal to me. | Truly a child of the late 20th Century. |What is the alternative? | Eating right; reasonable excercise and sunlight exposure; avoiding carcinogens; moderation in everything--y'know, the stuff your grandparents did. |There is no way for a person to stay completely healthy |without parts breaking down for an entire lifetime. | See "grandparents" (above). The best route to a long healthy life is choosing your parents carefully. |Obviously pills alone are not 100% the answer but they are a necessity. | Too often they are a crutch or a substitute for responsible behavior. |There are no axe wounds in Windows. | I have linked here numerous times to the CERT advisory for IE. Mixing data and instructions in memory is suicidal (can you say "buffer overflow"?). (Win9x) not having user levels is just stupid (Unix had them in 1969). (NT) Passing out root priviledges like candy to services is stupid. That's for starters. |The closest would be to just format and reinstall. | You just changed planets. I'm talking about serious security flaws in the codebase. Those need to be recoded. Putting back a copy of Windoze with the same bad code won't cure anything. WRT reinstalls, the Windows Registry makes reinstalls a huge pain (see "making it hard to pirate M$ wares", above). ...and Unix has had a better way, again, since 1969. |Or install your backup (if you have one, everyone should). | Cloning and restoring your drive is an easy way to get back from a clueless-user-induced problem --and cloning will also work for the OSes that are better than Windoze. With Windoze, however, this is the ONLY **easy** way to get back to right. Having to reinstall every one of your apps the traditional way under Windoze can take DAYS. To reinstall Linux (the OS AND all the apps that come on the distro CD) takes less than 2 hours on a really slow box--and you don't have to babysit it --and you don't have to reboot, reboot, reboot, reboot, reboot, reboot. For another stark contrast, see "Linux package manager" (above). (While app installs/updates are happening, you can even **use** your Linux system.) There really is no comparison. ...and this bootable toolkit (which includes Clonezilla) is the easy way to do maintenance without paying for anything. (Windoze certainly doesn't come with any such useful tools.) http://google.com/search?q=%22+Parted.Magic It replaces Partition Magic and Norton Ghost and has a scad of other great stuff: cache of http://partedmagic.com/programs.html Do I really need to say that that is a Linux distro? [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: Another serious blow delivered to the validity of EULAs Sunday, October 18, 2009 at 11:20 pm Posted by sekirt (297 messages posted) Been a while since I've seen you around these parts. I look in from time to time. Win98 forum doesn't move too fast these days. :) Seldom post anything anymore. I have plenty of computing experience and I don't choose to switch to Linux or Mac for that matter. ...and some people still drive cars with clutches. Most folks go for the easier solution. Horses for courses. You miss the whole purpose of my posting. My cars are all automatic and have been for years. I do like what I use and would not find it easier to switch to a Mac or Linux. I'd never switch to Mac because of price for one thing. As I explained about Linux, while some OEMs have computers w/Linux, it still is not mainstream enough. Also, I believe I read that some have discontinued putting Linux on new computers? Maybe someday FREE Linux will override my other reasons for buying MS - but not yet. I doubt security will be the reason I change though. Maybe you've missed my posts about how there are many Web developer groups who are dropping support for IE6 (the latest version of that which works under Win9x). At one time IE ver 3 was good enough. And a lot of DOS programs do not work under newer OS versions. But switching to Linux won't make IE6 work there either. The question in this forum is "Should you continue to use a 10 year old OS that wasn't so great when it was released, and hasn't been supported for over 3 years --and when you switch, should you give money for the replacement (and end up with a lot of the same old flaws)?". I have never been a believer in "You get what you paid for," (unless it somehow helps my argument - lol) I jumped the Win98 ship but it took me 6 months after buying the new computer. It just sat there until I installed Vista. I don't like parts of it - but I have not had any major problems. It is really a nice trouble-free OS. But then again, I never had any major problems with Win98 or IE. The answer to your question is, yes or no, depends on what you want. My choice was yes, Vista. Win7 seems to be much more popular but I think Vista is getting a bad rap. Changing defaults and running it the way I want is the key to making it easier. ...then there's the "won't work on my old hardware" thing with newer M$ stuff. Other than financial reasons, why would you want to? Even the latest (NT-only) versions suck WRT standard-compliance (Acid3) and WRT security (CERT's 2004 advisory still stands; NONE of the holes identified have EVER been closed--in ANY version). But security has NEVER been a problem for me, so I don't really care. Using IE yourself is one thing; advising others to do that without full instructions how to harden it [1] is derelict. I feel default for IE is too hardened. Why would anyone want to make it harder to use? I like to be able to do everything IE is capable of doing - I'll take the risks. The only people I would advise to run it like I do, are the people that ask for help to do that. If someone asked to "harden" it, then I'd offer help for them. Otherwise default is just fine for most. Assuming that the experience of an aware, proactive user will be representative across the spectrum of users is foolish. Software should INSTALL in a secure mode. I disagree. It should install in a reasonable manner, allowing one to either heighten or lessen security. Security should not be the determining factor. To switch to another program, Outlook Express, to me it is ludicrous that the default is set to block attachments - I want attachments. Most are cartoons - I don't want to fiddle with turning controls off just to get a cartoon. And same for a few other settings in OE. I'd never do email if it was strictly webmail or if it was text only. You might call it wreckless but I've never had a problem. And just as we teach people how to push a button, then we should be advising the rules to being proactive for protection. Then it is the users problem if they don't and we tell them "see, I told you so." To expand on my *settings* comment, most folks use their OSes in the default out-of-the-box installed condition. With Win9x, that default condition is simply abysmal. Add to that that security updates for it stopped over 3 years ago. Ha! Like I said, I ran my 98 with even less security than what you are talking about. Proves it can be done. Actually, I started out talking about laws and FREEDOM, specifically, EULAs and the First-Sale Doctrine. Agreed, way off topic now. ...and the desktop is becoming an ever-tinier fraction of computing. The majority of sales are mobile devices; ARM is becoming the hardware platform and Linux is the software platform. Windoze doesn't run on ARM. Last I checked, Debian Linux supported 11 hardware architectures (they've dropped some or the number would be higher). In my mind, these are not people hanging onto Win98. They are the big spenders that can afford all that. None of it affects me. If I did want mobile, then Linux might be a consideration. (Linux guys DON'T have to worry about infections). You wouldn't be able to say that if Linux had, say, 50% or more of the market. The truth is that it doesn't take a separate computer to run Linux. In fact, Linux does all the heavy lifting and sets up everything on your old box --dual boot right beside your current OS. That is fine for some - for me, I'd want it separate to make a decision. If I decided on Linux, I wouldn't mix MS on the same computer either. Call it compulsive behavior. I want my peas and corn separate, not mixed. apparently you aren't aware that you DON'T have to *install* Linux to try it. I'm aware. Same deal though, I won't mix. (Just so you don't say something, when I say mix - I realize they would be separate. But I mean mix in the sense of both being on the same computer). The parents can do all the stuff they used to do and have never missed a beat. Parents can do all the stuff they used to by using webTV! They don't even realize Notepad/Paint/Media Player is available! They don't customize their computer to the way they want it. Neither do MOST users. BTW, naw, no paid for software, my 100+ programs are 100% freeware. There is far more freeware for MS than Linux and Mac combined! Including DOS freeware programs. Eating right; reasonable excercise and sunlight exposure; avoiding carcinogens; moderation in everything--y'know, the stuff your grandparents did. Yeah, depending how far back you want to go, they died at a much younger age. And probably suffered much more with barbaric health treatments that probably did not work. Bloodletting anyone? Pulling teeth to fix cavities that hurt? Ending up with no teeth? Just hack an arm or leg off while biting a bullet? No thanks, I'll take the pill or modern method everytime. I am not advocating illegal drugs here. Figure your comments for pills applied to legal medication. Well, if you want a final word, please go ahead. I still like MS over other systems and security is the least of my reasons for choosing an operating system I know you will continue to disagree but I am happy enough. Peace and good health. sekirt On Saturday, October 17, 2009 at 2:05 pm, gewg_ wrote: >sekirt wrote: >|You sure have gotten nasty from when you first started posting here. :) >| >Hey, Old Timer. Been a while since I've seen you around these parts. >Yeah, over time I've certainly become less tolerant of 4th-rate technology. > >|Simply: You're wrong about some things. >| >Lately, Steve and and Arminius have been keeping me on my toes >WRT my accuracy. I can usually give examples of how I'm right. >Kiwi showed up again after a protracted absence and questioned my positions too. > >|I have plenty of computing experience and I don't choose to switch to Linux >|- or Mac for that matter. >| >...and some people still drive cars with clutches. >Most folks go for the easier solution. Horses for courses. > >The question in this forum is >"Should you continue to use a 10 year old OS >that wasn't so great when it was released, >and hasn't been supported for over 3 years >--and when you switch, should you give money for the replacement >(and end up with a lot of the same old flaws)?". > >...then there's the "won't work on my old hardware" thing with newer M$ stuff. > >With my solution: A whole flock of birds, 1 stone. > >|I use IE exclusively and don't like FF. >| >Horses for courses. >Maybe you've missed my posts about how >there are many Web developer groups who are dropping support for IE6 >(the latest version of that which works under Win9x). > >Even the latest (NT-only) versions suck WRT standard-compliance (Acid3) >and WRT security (CERT's 2004 advisory still stands; >NONE of the holes identified have EVER been closed--in ANY version). > >Using IE yourself is one thing; >advising others to do that without full instructions how to harden it[1] is derelict. > >The instructions for how to get a secure Firefox or Opera install: >Install it. Use it. > >[1] Even then, CERT says that it still sucks 7 ways to Sunday. > >|I keep my security settings in IE even lower than recommended >| >The average user doesn't know the first thing about IE's settings. >That those even exist would be news to them. >The DEFAULT install of Firefox or Opera is FAR more secure. > >|and I have never had a problem >| >Assuming that the experience of an aware, proactive user >will be representative across the spectrum of users is foolish. >Software should INSTALL in a secure mode. > >|from back in 2002 when I was posting here to now with Vista. >| >Newer versions have marginally better security >--but even that pales in comparison to EVERYTHING ELSE. > >|Never had a virus. Never ever - so stop scaring people. >|Not everyone gets into trouble, even if there are bad people out there. >| >To expand on my *settings* comment, >most folks use their OSes in the default out-of-the-box installed condition. >With Win9x, that default condition is simply abysmal. >Add to that that security updates for it stopped over 3 years ago. > >|Unfortunately, the nature of a troubleshooting forum >|brings out only those that do get infected. >| >That's right. You speak to the audience that shows up. > >|So your view is skewed. >| >...to reflect the reality that we see with Joe Average. >The method I advocate also takes less knowledge and less effort. > >|And yes many computer operators >|should pack their computer back in the box because they are idiots. >| >Most users should be using a computing environment >whose out-of-the-box condition is secure by default. >Those are readily available FOR FREE. >The opposite side of that coin is often called Defective By Design. > >|I don't do P2P. That seems to be the root of your article >| >Not at all. The number of security holes in Windoze is legion. > >...and, after my *Most Popular Apps by Platform* link, >this thread went a bit off-track. >That item **does** speak volumes about the relative merits of the 2 ecosystems. > >Actually, I started out talking about laws and FREEDOM, >specifically, EULAs and the First-Sale Doctrine. >If some corporation wants to RENT their wares, >they have to state *a time limit* in the agreement with the other party; >everything else is a SALE and once sold it's not that corp's property any more >--the corp can't tell the purchaser what he can and can't do with it. > >Free Software doesn't have any of that nonsense. >Charging for ones and zeros is so last-century. >The model for the 21st Century is selling SUPPORT. > >|...a primary cause of infection. >|(http://www.psychocats.net/ubuntucat/antivirusculture). >| >I was recently in an engineering newsgroup >and one of the guys wanted to know >how he could put a presentation on a thumbdrive and get it to AutoRun. > >In the non-M$ world this would be of no consequence. >In the Windoze world, this is an invitation to an infection--especially with Win9x. >The contrast between *n?x and the M$ ecosystem is night-and-day; >POSIX boxes, used in their default state just don't get pwned. >When a *n?x box DOES get infected (yes, *n?x also has stupid users), >the only thing that gets infected is THAT user's personal directory >--the OS remains unharmed. > >|I am careful about what emails I open. >|I seldom get spam anyway with the filtering that email providers currently use. >| >Spam is annoying, but it isn't a security threat--on a properly designed system >(Linux guys DON'T have to worry about infections). > >|[...]I used to use Spybot >|and even uninstalled that years ago because it never found anything. >| >Linux guys look at the hoops that Windoze guys jump thru and say "WTF??". > >|Until Linux is an over-the-counter established OS, I'll probably never switch. >| >Dell offers pre-installed Linux; HP too; Acer too... >It's time you came out of your dark hole into the sunlight. > >...and the desktop is becoming an ever-tinier fraction of computing. >The majority of sales are mobile devices; >ARM is becoming the hardware platform and Linux is the software platform. >Windoze doesn't run on ARM. >Last I checked, Debian Linux supported 11 hardware architectures >(they've dropped some or the number would be higher). > >Nokia's upcoming N900 phone is the wave of the future: A real Linux install. >Fully hackable. Want a Linux app on it? Download it and install. No sweat. > >|It is an unknown. I am not going to experiment. >| >Spoken like a true Luddite. >Linux has been mainstream since at least Ubuntu 8.04 (April 2008). > >|If I had an extra computer that I didn't care about, maybe then. >| >I recommend that folks put Linux on a separate drive. >One big reason for the separate drive >is that M$ is stupid and likes to nuke other OSes. >The inverse condition where Linux auto-demolishes Windoze installs? >You just never hear about that happening in the Linux forums. > >The truth is that it doesn't take a separate computer to run Linux. >In fact, Linux does all the heavy lifting and sets up everything on your old box >--dual boot right beside your current OS. > >...and like M$-centric Luddites everywhere, >apparently you aren't aware that you DON'T have to *install* Linux to try it. >UNLIKE M$'s low grade of junk >(which, INSTEAD of concentrating on MAKING IT EASY FOR THE USER, >concentrates on making it hard to pirate M$ wares), >almost all Linux CDs can be booted to a fully-functional Linux desktop. > >There are also lots of non-Luddites >who have gotten tired of dealing with the weaknesses of Windoze and >the accompanying monthly chore and have installed Linux on their parents' boxes. >The parents can do all the stuff they used to do and have never missed a beat. > >Some parents do it themselves. Again, no sweat. >from the Usenet Archive -- Linux Mint 6 is easy >--and that's not even the latest version (which is easier still). > >...and there are hundreds of millions of schoolchildren >who don't seem to have a huge problem understanding Linux. > >Mama used to call me a "food-foolish" because I'd say that I didn't like a food >--even though I'd never tasted it. >Same deal with M$ fanboyz and Linux. > >|I suspect the same is true of many people >|- your "sales pitch" is far from convincing >|because it just sounds like you hate MS and nothing more. >| >The problem with M$ zealots is that they are usually ONLY aware of M$. >If they would peek out of their M$ caves now and then, >they would see the world as it is. >More and more countries and municipalities are mandating Free Software, >often for cost reasons but many for CONTROL reasons as well. >(Sending money offshore and being beholding to one corporation >is increasingly see as foolish.) >Open Source Software is often called Free(dom) Software. > >Outside the English-speaking countries (USA, UK, AU), >Linux is especially growing by leaps and bounds. >OTOH, the USA-like countries are paying too much for their computing needs >(think: buying M$ licenses instead of increasing teachers' pay) >and those countries are slipping technologically >as their software developer communities remain mired in the past. > >Corporations are moving to Linux as well (especially in these hard times). >Burlington Coat Factory and Ernie Ball, Inc. >have been off the Windoze treadmill all of this century. > >|I think MS has made what most people want. >| >Right. Most people want single-source easily-infected systems. > >|I think most are relatively satisfied with Windows. >| >Most people still use the same soap their mothers used on them. >The boiling-a-frog metaphor comes to mind here. > >|I think many people hear people like you >|say "Windows Sucks" everytime something goes wrong. >|Can't tell you how many times I have heard people say that >|and had absolutely no basis for saying it. >| >Unlike you, some people have actually TRIED non-M$ products >and actually have a basis for comparison. >Not having to constantly worry about their OS getting infected >is what most folks are seeking. >Outside of that, OSes and productivity software are commodity items >(and FREE beats any other price in most folks' books). > >Most folks are simply ignorant of their choices. >There is a move afoot in the EU to mandate a la carte price for computer sales; >when folks see FREE Linux beside $54 (or whatever) Windoze, >the choice will be obvious for most. > >|They had XP and now have Vista. >| >This is a 98 forum. People who come here are running something >that is 10 years old and hasn't seen updates for over 3 years. >I'm sure the thought of having to buy all new hardware >to run new software isn't appealing for most folks either. > >Linux offers something that is up to date and will run on old hardware >and it's FREE. > >|They have some problem with, for example, setting up Windows Mail. >| >Horses for courses. Doesn't speak well of their ability to choose software. >Having all your data in a single file doesn't seem bright to me. > >|Then they add how they never had that problem with Outlook Express. >| >I've seen an overwhelming number of folks with real problems >using what is by far the most-easily-infected mail client >--even more problems than is proportionate with that PoS's market share. > >|Programs I have added to Windows are programs to make life easier for me. >| >Bet you paid for some of those. >Again: FREE Software--gratis AND libre aka Free(dom)ware. >Windoze guys have a really hard time wrapping their heads around that. > >|I've probably added around 100 programs (maybe more). >|I am not married to Microsoft >| >...said the frog in the water whose temperature is steadily increasing. >When those apps are ported to platforms other than Windoze, >THEN you're not married to M$. > >When you can use all those apps without installing them (Registry again), >and can carry a thumbdrive from box to box to do that, then we'll talk. > >|The assortment of freeware for Windows is amazing >| >Free(dom) Software has that and more. >A lot of Free(dom) Software is also cross-platform; >it works the same when you switch between OSes. >...and again: >Getting/installing/updating Free Software apps using a Linux "package manager" >makes installing Windoze-compatible apps look completely brain-dead. > >|and you can find a program for just about whatever you want. >|Can't say that about Linux or Mac. >| >Again, your knowledge of the Free Software ecosystem is woefully inadequate. >http://google.com/search?q=site:freshmeat.net/projects >Your Mac knowledge isn't even slightly impressive either. >1999 called and wants its tired old myths back. > >|According to you, since Linux is so superior and basically free, >| >Not "basically"--TOTALLY free (Gratis AND Libre) > >|there shouldn't be any Windows Operating Systems in Asia. Ha! >| >Not my position at all. There are some people who have to settle for 2nd-best. >There are still apps (dumb developers) that *only* run under real Windoze. >(The WINE project isn't 100.0% compliant quite yet.) > >A monoculture of only Linux would not be a good thing either. >I do believe that of all the OSes that exist (mostly *n?x: BSD, Solaris, OS X...), >M$'s junk is the syphilitic old maid at the ball. > >|Popping (the right) pills to get healthy or keep living >|sounds completely normal to me. >| >Truly a child of the late 20th Century. > >|What is the alternative? >| >Eating right; reasonable excercise and sunlight exposure; avoiding carcinogens; >moderation in everything--y'know, the stuff your grandparents did. > >|There is no way for a person to stay completely healthy >|without parts breaking down for an entire lifetime. >| >See "grandparents" (above). >The best route to a long healthy life is choosing your parents carefully. > >|Obviously pills alone are not 100% the answer but they are a necessity. >| >Too often they are a crutch or a substitute for responsible behavior. > >|There are no axe wounds in Windows. >| >I have linked here numerous times to the CERT advisory for IE. > >Mixing data and instructions in memory is suicidal (can you say "buffer overflow"?). > >(Win9x) not having user levels is just stupid (Unix had them in 1969). > >(NT) Passing out root priviledges like candy to services is stupid. > >That's for starters. > >|The closest would be to just format and reinstall. >| >You just changed planets. >I'm talking about serious security flaws in the codebase. >Those need to be recoded. >Putting back a copy of Windoze with the same bad code won't cure anything. > >WRT reinstalls, the Windows Registry makes reinstalls a huge pain >(see "making it hard to pirate M$ wares", above). >...and Unix has had a better way, again, since 1969. > >|Or install your backup (if you have one, everyone should). >| >Cloning and restoring your drive >is an easy way to get back from a clueless-user-induced problem >--and cloning will also work for the OSes that are better than Windoze. > >With Windoze, however, this is the ONLY **easy** way to get back to right. >Having to reinstall every one of your apps the traditional way under Windoze >can take DAYS. > >To reinstall Linux (the OS AND all the apps that come on the distro CD) >takes less than 2 hours on a really slow box--and you don't have to babysit it >--and you don't have to reboot, reboot, reboot, reboot, reboot, reboot. > >For another stark contrast, see "Linux package manager" (above). >(While app installs/updates are happening, >you can even **use** your Linux system.) >There really is no comparison. > >...and this bootable toolkit (which includes Clonezilla) >is the easy way to do maintenance without paying for anything. >(Windoze certainly doesn't come with any such useful tools.) >http://google.com/search?q=%22+Parted.Magic > >It replaces Partition Magic and Norton Ghost and has a scad of other great stuff: >cache >of http://partedmagic.com/programs.html > >Do I really need to say that that is a Linux distro? [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: Another serious blow delivered to the validity of EULAs Monday, October 19, 2009 at 12:02 pm Posted by gewg_ (4444 messages posted) sekirt wrote: |Linux[...]OEMs[...]have discontinued putting Linux on new computers? | That is due to more of M$'s illegal anti-trust activities WRT vendors and to regulators still asleeping at the switch. Obama? Pffft. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. |switching to Linux won't make IE6 work there either. | There is ZERO reason to ever use M$'s lousy online apps online. I firewalled off IE in 2002. I hasn't been on the 'Net since then. Never missed it. ...and Mozilla's stuff and Opera's stuff work the same on all platforms. OTOH, newer pages (e.g. using HTML5) will look like crap with IE6 (and IE7 and IE8). Their lack of standards-compliance is just pitiful (Acid3). ...and for those masochistic enough to use it, IE works just fine under WINE, in turn under Linux (mostly for checking the compliant Web pages you build yourself against IE's lousy standards-compliance). ...and you can have SEVERAL versions of IE installed on a Linux box; try THAT with your *real* Windoze box. The bulk of Windoze-compatible apps also work just fine under WINE. ...and you don't get infections when running WINE. The *real* M$ environment is inferior to WINE in almost every way. ||"Should you continue to use a 10 year old OS ||[...]should you give money for the replacement?" || |I have never been a believer in "You get what you paid for," | Put 'er there, brother. {Extends hand} To quote a Usenet poster whom I thought was particularly insightful: "Mostly you get a lost less". |(unless it somehow helps my argument - lol) | 8-) ||...then there's the "won't work on my old hardware" thing ||with newer M$ stuff. || |Other than financial reasons, why would you want to? | My parents grew up in The Great Depression. Their constant thrift rubbed off on me even more than on my siblings. I can't stand waste and I get maximum service out of EVERYTHING. ...then again, maybe my "needs" aren't as demanding as others. ||advising others [to use IE] ||without full instructions how to harden it is derelict. || |I feel [the] default for IE is too hardened. | Again, like M$ users everywhere, you mistake difficulty for good security and bad security for ease of use. Firefox and Opera are secure out of the box and are easy to use. IE just sucks--even after spending much effort on it. It shouldn't be that hard to use software --and ending up with something that is still inferior is just lame. |It should install in a reasonable manner, |allowing one to either heighten or lessen security. |Security should not be the determining factor. | Again, in your warped M$ world you don't understand what security is. Security is what is built into the software--it's at the CORE. If you have to paste on crap to cover for flaws, THAT is NOT security. Linux doesn't need any of those stupid band-aids. Linux **installs** in a secure state. |I'd never do email if it was strictly webmail or if it was text only. | You and I are worlds apart on that one. I believe in using the proper protocols for things. Using a wrench for a hammer makes you look dumb. ...and we can't blame M$ for that one; it was actually Netscape that extended email beyond plain-text. ||(Linux guys DON'T have to worry about infections). || |You wouldn't be able to say that if Linux had, |say, 50% or more of the market. | Well, now you went and poked the bear. Only fools rely on Security Through Obscurity. That has never been a valid security model and Unix has always known that. The markets where Open Source Software already dominates are: 1) The Apache Web server The competition is M$'s Internet Information Server. Despite IIS being in the minority WRT installations, IIS has orders of magnitude more security breaches than Apache. 2) The BIND Domain Name Server The competition is Microsoft's DNS server. Again, M$'s product has FAR more security breaches than BIND. 3) The Sendmail Email Server Again, Microsoft Exchange Server's security is abysmal by comparison. Your FUD is weak and is easily dispelled. The problem with M$ software is that it is poorly designed and poorly crafted. That phrase again is "Defective By Design". Again, Unix-like OSes have a security model that goes back to 1969. It worked then and it still works. M$ ignored the lessons of history and have repeatedly produced crap. ...and if there *were* ANY Linux infections/botnets, don't you think M$ would be on TV and in the magazines with sponsored "news" items pointing out the failures of their competition? Hasn't happened. The reason is NOT because of fewer users --it is because *n?x has superior OS design. In fact, there have been scores of Linux exploits written; what there hasn't been is mass infections of the Linux ecosystem. |There is far more freeware for MS than Linux and Mac combined! | ...and you and I both know that the bulk of that is redundant junk.[1] The stuff in Free(dom) Software repositories is also vetted --for quality and for malware-freeness. WRT infections, how anyone trusts the multitude of sources of freeware for Windoze any more, I can't imagine. Very much like Russian Roulette. [1] ...and the software development model for the new millennium uses cross-platform development tools; porting the app to a different ecosystem simply requires recompiling on the new platform. My friend, the Java developer, tells me that he got tired of being crapped on when it came to licensing for M$'s proprietary tools anyway. [Reply or follow-up to this message] The single biggest problem on the 'Net (was:...EULAs) Tuesday, October 27, 2009 at 7:28 pm Posted by gewg_ (4444 messages posted) gewg_ wrote: ||(Linux guys DON'T have to worry about infections). || sekirt wrote: |You wouldn't be able to say that if Linux had, |say, 50% or more of the market. | gewg_ wrote: :Well, now you went and poked the bear. : :Only fools rely on Security Through Obscurity. :That has never been a valid security model and Unix has always known that. : :The markets where Open Source Software already dominates are: : :1) The Apache Web server :The competition is M$'s Internet Information Server. :Despite IIS being in the minority WRT installations, :IIS has orders of magnitude more security breaches than Apache. Another guy has put a fine point on this. He lists even more M$ apps (besides IIS) and enumerates how the vast majority of the problems on the Internet are due to brain-dead M$ technologies at the server end: from the Usenet Archive: Rex Ballard -- The Big Problem is... If all the M$ junk was scraped off all the servers, there would be a lot fewer mechanisms for the malware to enter the stream. Note also the title of that thread; for being a relatively small percentage of the systems on the server end of the 'Net, M$ junk causes a disproportionate amount of the grief. ...and, of course, if there weren't any M$ client boxes to get infected, the infection level on the Internet would drop to within eleven 9s of zero. [Reply or follow-up to this message] INFECTIONS: The old wives' tale put to bed Wednesday, November 11, 2009 at 2:03 pm Posted by gewg_ (4444 messages posted) gewg_ wrote: ||(Linux guys DON'T have to worry about infections). || sekirt wrote: |You wouldn't be able to say that if Linux had, |say, 50% or more of the market. I stumbled on a page by a talented writer[1] who did a really good job of putting together _all_ the pieces: cache of http://www.downloadsquad.com/2008/02/14/flipping-the-linux-switch-the-anti-virus-question/print NOTE: *n?x is NOT a panacea. It *still* can't protect you from YOUR OWN stupidity. If you download a Linux-compatible app from a dubious source[2] then make the effort to flip the x bit to executable then run that, you CAN expect it to do nasty things to **YOUR** home directory. If, however, you haven't unnecessarily monkeyed with privileges (i.e. you've just left them in their default-install state[3]), the OTHER users on the system won't be affected in the slightest by YOUR stupidity: the Linux operating system won't need to be disinfected nor reinstalled nor its security or state thought about in the slightest. Note: The *human interaction* part is the reason that **thoughtful** Windoze users (e.g. Steve) can often get by without band-aids plastered all over their systems. ...and Linux's unflipped x bit on downloaded files makes the final difference. http://google.com/search?q=r-w-x-r-w-x-r-w-x+permissions+owner+group+other Again, it's about an OS that's NOT Defective By Design. [1] More of Kristin's excellent work: google.com/search?q=site:downloadsquad.com+intitle:"Flipping.the.Linux.switch" [2] Vetted repositories of Linux-compatible software are SIMPLE to find; crap sources are easily spotted. [3] ...and use su and/or sudo to do things that require elevated privileges. This is why I say that Puppy is NOT real Linux and should be avoided. Others that suck for the same reason: dyna:bolic; XandrOS; Linspire/Freespire. [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: INFECTIONS: The old wives' tale put to bed Wednesday, November 11, 2009 at 2:37 pm Posted by sekirt (297 messages posted) gewg_ Thanks for the article. Very informative. I wouldn't switch to Linux now for sure. I want to flip a switch and do what I want to do with my computer. No logging on. No nags. No creating an exe. No user account. *Attention any normal computer owners* I am willing to take the gamble that a bad guy won't infect my computer - that is why I do things my way. I do not recommend you do the same. If I ran a company, I would not hesitate to follow the normal rules. Too much can go wrong and the best employee in the world can make a simple mistake. A business cannot afford that kind of down-time. sekirt On Wednesday, November 11, 2009 at 2:03 pm, gewg_ wrote: >gewg_ wrote: >||(Linux guys DON'T have to worry about infections). >|| >sekirt wrote: >|You wouldn't be able to say that if Linux had, >|say, 50% or more of the market. > >I stumbled on a page by a talented writer[1] >who did a really good job of putting together _all_ the pieces: >cache >of http://www.downloadsquad.com/2008/02/14/flipping-the-linux-switch-the-anti-virus-question/print > >NOTE: *n?x is NOT a panacea. >It *still* can't protect you from YOUR OWN stupidity. >If you download a Linux-compatible app from a dubious source[2] >then make the effort to flip the x bit to executable then run that, >you CAN expect it to do nasty things to **YOUR** home directory. > >If, however, you haven't unnecessarily monkeyed with privileges >(i.e. you've just left them in their default-install state[3]), >the OTHER users on the system won't be affected in the slightest by YOUR stupidity: >the Linux operating system won't need to be disinfected nor reinstalled >nor its security or state thought about in the slightest. > >Note: The *human interaction* part >is the reason that **thoughtful** Windoze users (e.g. Steve) >can often get by without band-aids plastered all over their systems. >...and Linux's unflipped x bit on downloaded files makes the final difference. >http://google.com/search?q=r-w-x-r-w-x-r-w-x+permissions+owner+group+other >Again, it's about an OS that's NOT Defective By Design. > > >[1] More of Kristin's excellent work: >google.com/search?q=site:downloadsquad.com+intitle:"Flipping.the.Linux.switch" > >[2] Vetted repositories of Linux-compatible software are SIMPLE to find; >crap sources are easily spotted. > >[3] ...and use su and/or sudo to do things that require elevated privileges. >This is why I say that Puppy is NOT real Linux and should be avoided. >Others that suck for the same reason: dyna:bolic; XandrOS; Linspire/Freespire. [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: INFECTIONS: The old wives' tale put to bed Wednesday, November 11, 2009 at 6:24 pm Posted by gewg_ (4444 messages posted) sekirt wrote: |Thanks for the article. Very informative. | I'm very impressed with that author. |I wouldn't switch to Linux now for sure. |I want to flip a switch and do what I want to do with my computer. | There's nothing that says you **can't** run as root with ANY OS --though it's foolish and anyone with the slightest sense avoids it.[1] It is the OPPOSITE condition that is too often not available. As noted, Win9x and Puppy are examples which DON'T offer a secure option. ...and really, how hard is it to change a file's attributes once in a blue moon? [1] The only reason running as root is even an issue is that so many Windoze developers are so incompetent at their jobs --oh, and the fact that Micros~1 built such a lame permissions model to start with. (In ~1986, when M$ was getting started on Windoze, *n?x had one of those that had been working right for well over a decade.) [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: INFECTIONS: The old wives' tale put to bed Wednesday, November 11, 2009 at 7:46 pm Posted by sekirt (297 messages posted) quote: "--though it's foolish and anyone with the slightest sense avoids it." Um...thanks for saying I don't have the slightest sense. You forget...IF I never had any security problems with Win98 and no security problems with Vista, then your comments are only boogeyman stories and nothing more. You may also want to warn me about elephants that will trample my house. Like I should built a stronger house. quote: "...and really, how hard is it to change a file's attributes once in a blue moon?" On average, I'd say 3 or 4 times a week. I already hate zipped files, Linux would just be adding one more item. OT Let me ask you one question, because you probably know. Can you view a directory (unsorted) in the order the files were put onto the hard drive? So if I have 3 files, A B C and I copy them to a directory in this order C A B, can I see them in that order? The sorting that Windows does, is what I don't like the most about NTFS systems. That is my biggest complaint. Not at all concerned about security but seeing the files the way I want to see them might be enough to switch sometime in the future. sekirt On Wednesday, November 11, 2009 at 6:24 pm, gewg_ wrote: >sekirt wrote: >|Thanks for the article. Very informative. >| >I'm very impressed with that author. > >|I wouldn't switch to Linux now for sure. >|I want to flip a switch and do what I want to do with my computer. >| >There's nothing that says you **can't** run as root with ANY OS >--though it's foolish and anyone with the slightest sense avoids it.[1] > >It is the OPPOSITE condition that is too often not available. >As noted, Win9x and Puppy are examples which DON'T offer a secure option. > > >...and really, how hard is it to change a file's attributes once in a blue moon? > > >[1] The only reason running as root is even an issue >is that so many Windoze developers are so incompetent at their jobs >--oh, and the fact that Micros~1 built such a lame permissions model to start with. >(In ~1986, when M$ was getting started on Windoze, >*n?x had one of those that had been working right for well over a decade.) [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: INFECTIONS: The old wives' tale put to bed Wednesday, November 11, 2009 at 10:53 pm Posted by gewg_ (4444 messages posted) gewg_ wrote: ||--though it's foolish and anyone with the slightest sense avoids it. || sekirt wrote: |Um...thanks for saying I don't have the slightest sense. | Hey, I'm a nerd, not a diplomat. ...and you've been around M$ products enough to be aware of how many back doors and trap doors and gotchas there are yet you continue to spit into the wind. That's not exhibiting what I consider common sense and certainly not wisdom. |You forget...IF I never had any security problems with Win98 |and no security problems with Vista, |then your comments are only boogeyman stories and nothing more. | I refuse to believe that someone who routinely runs as root has NEVER been infected. It may not have become the size problem that caused your ISP to cut you off, but at some point over the years, you got an infection of some kind --whether your band-aid layer pointed it out or not. |OT |Can you view a directory (unsorted) |in the order the files were put onto the hard drive? |So if I have 3 files, A B C and I copy them to a directory in this order C A B, |can I see them in that order? | Not necessarily. If none of the files were ever messed with subsequently, _then_ *n?x would list them in the order they were written. If altered in any way (e.g. permissions), the *n?x directory listing utility puts things in order of last change (of whatever type) --but doesn't bother with creation dates as data points otherwise. cache of http://www.computerhope.com/unix/uls.htm http://google.com/search?q=define:i-node A journaling filesystem will put each file wherever it finds a big enough empty spot, so neither NTFS nor ext3 would necessarily put them in sequential order physically. Oddly enough, an OS using a FAT filesystem[1] would likely do what you want (e.g. using a DOS DIR without any -O parameter to sort them --which would list them by physical order) with the probability of success proportional to the time between the last defrag and the file's copying-over from another device --but again, not a sure thing. For my part, I wondered if it was possible to make backups of Windoze files and somehow not disturb the creation date of the files. I suspect it would require having to create my own OS/utility (or hack what exists). WRT the topic of relative security of the platforms, this is a fun data point: cache of http://www.goodbyemicrosoft.net/print.php?news.205 [1] Linux supports FAT--along with dozens of other filesystems. [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: INFECTIONS: The old wives' tale put to bed Wednesday, November 11, 2009 at 11:20 pm Posted by sekirt (297 messages posted) Quote: "I refuse to believe that someone who routinely runs as root has NEVER been infected." You'd lose. Quote:"That's not exhibiting what I consider common sense and certainly not wisdom." Maybe I know something you don't. That would make your statement wrong. Quote: "If none of the files were ever messed with subsequently, >_then_ *n?x would list them in the order they were written." Thanks. DOS default dir command was perfect. Win98 (FAT) worked well also. Win3.1 was better, though, I can't remember why right now. sekirt On Wednesday, November 11, 2009 at 10:53 pm, gewg_ wrote: >gewg_ wrote: >||--though it's foolish and anyone with the slightest sense avoids it. >|| >sekirt wrote: >|Um...thanks for saying I don't have the slightest sense. >| >Hey, I'm a nerd, not a diplomat. >...and you've been around M$ products enough to be aware of >how many back doors and trap doors and gotchas there are >yet you continue to spit into the wind. >That's not exhibiting what I consider common sense and certainly not wisdom. > >|You forget...IF I never had any security problems with Win98 >|and no security problems with Vista, >|then your comments are only boogeyman stories and nothing more. >| >I refuse to believe that someone who routinely runs as root >has NEVER been infected. >It may not have become the size problem that caused your ISP to cut you off, >but at some point over the years, you got an infection of some kind >--whether your band-aid layer pointed it out or not. > >|OT >|Can you view a directory (unsorted) >|in the order the files were put onto the hard drive? >|So if I have 3 files, A B C and I copy them to a directory in this order C A B, >|can I see them in that order? >| >Not necessarily. If none of the files were ever messed with subsequently, >_then_ *n?x would list them in the order they were written. >If altered in any way (e.g. permissions), the *n?x directory listing utility >puts things in order of last change (of whatever type) >--but doesn't bother with creation dates as data points otherwise. >cache >of http://www.computerhope.com/unix/uls.htm >http://google.com/search?q=define:i-node > >A journaling filesystem will put each file wherever it finds a big enough empty spot, >so neither NTFS nor ext3 would necessarily put them in sequential order physically. >Oddly enough, an OS using a FAT filesystem[1] would likely do what you want >(e.g. using a DOS DIR without any -O parameter to sort them >--which would list them by physical order) >with the probability of success proportional to >the time between the last defrag and the file's copying-over from another device >--but again, not a sure thing. > >For my part, I wondered if it was possible to make backups of Windoze files >and somehow not disturb the creation date of the files. >I suspect it would require having to create my own OS/utility (or hack what exists). > > >WRT the topic of relative security of the platforms, this is a fun data point: >cache >of http://www.goodbyemicrosoft.net/print.php?news.205 > > >[1] Linux supports FAT--along with dozens of other filesystems. [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: INFECTIONS: The old wives' tale put to bed Sunday, November 22, 2009 at 8:25 pm Posted by gewg_ (4444 messages posted) sekirt wrote: |Thanks for the article. Very informative. I wouldn't switch to Linux now for sure. |I want to flip a switch and do what I want to do with my computer. |No logging on. No nags. No creating an exe. No user account. I thought you were the only whacko that wanted a completely insecure system, but I found another one: cache of http://forums.linuxmint.com/viewtopic.php?p=208822#p208644 [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: INFECTIONS: The old wives' tale put to bed Sunday, November 22, 2009 at 9:02 pm Posted by sekirt (297 messages posted) sekirt On Sunday, November 22, 2009 at 8:25 pm, gewg_ wrote: >sekirt wrote: >|Thanks for the article. Very informative. I wouldn't switch to Linux now for sure. >|I want to flip a switch and do what I want to do with my computer. >|No logging on. No nags. No creating an exe. No user account. > >I thought you were the only whacko that wanted a completely insecure system, >but I found another one: >cache >of http://forums.linuxmint.com/viewtopic.php?p=208822#p208644 > [Reply or follow-up to this message] "Ridiculous" Wednesday, December 9, 2009 at 12:31 pm Posted by gewg_ (4444 messages posted) gewg_ wrote: ||I thought you were the only whacko that wanted a completely insecure system, ||but I found another one: ||cache of http://forums.linuxmint.com/viewtopic.php?p=208822#p208644 sekirt wrote: | From penguininside.blogspot.com/2009/12/10-ridiculous-reasons-not-to-use-linux.html Ten Ridiculous Reasons Not To Use Linux 10. Linux? You mean that CLI thing? 9. My hardware doesn't meet the requirements. 8. It is so restrictive, can't do anything without root password. 7. Whenever I'm settled on a particular distribution, a new one appears. 6. It's incomplete. It lacks the Disk Defragment Utility 5. My files were infected by a Virus. 4. Does not turn off automatically. I always need to do that manually. 3. Security is too tight. Sometimes I can't even access my files. 2. Updates and Patches (Evolution of software) speed is faster than my broadband speed. 1. I couldn't find a CD-Key or Crack. Item 8 and Item 3 made me think of you. If anyone doesn't understand why any of these are ridiculous, I can explain why and contrast that with the ridiculous/restrictive way that Windoze does things. [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: "Ridiculous" Wednesday, December 9, 2009 at 7:00 pm Posted by sekirt (297 messages posted) I ask this in jest...did you hack my computer? Reason I ask, I picked up a trojan! Dec 3, 2009 @ 2:36am. First ever. Some coincidence! Our discussions and then Wham! a trojan shows up! (Just kidding about you hacking my computer). Bad one, took me a couple days to fix. Was looking up lyrics to a song at some website. Not enough to make me switch to Linux though. LOL sekirt On Wednesday, December 9, 2009 at 12:31 pm, gewg_ wrote: >gewg_ wrote: >||I thought you were the only whacko that wanted a completely insecure system, >||but I found another one: >||cache >of http://forums.linuxmint.com/viewtopic.php?p=208822#p208644 > >sekirt wrote: >| > > >From >penguininside.blogspot.com/2009/12/10-ridiculous-reasons-not-to-use-linux.html > >Ten Ridiculous Reasons Not To Use Linux > >10. Linux? You mean that CLI thing? > >9. My hardware doesn't meet the requirements. > >8. It is so restrictive, can't do anything without root password. > >7. Whenever I'm settled on a particular distribution, a new one appears. > >6. It's incomplete. It lacks the Disk Defragment Utility > >5. My files were infected by a Virus. > >4. Does not turn off automatically. I always need to do that manually. > >3. Security is too tight. Sometimes I can't even access my files. > >2. Updates and Patches (Evolution of software) speed > is faster than my broadband speed. > >1. I couldn't find a CD-Key or Crack. > >Item 8 and Item 3 made me think of you. > >If anyone doesn't understand why any of these are ridiculous, I can explain why >and contrast that with the ridiculous/restrictive way that Windoze does things. > [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: "Ridiculous" Wednesday, December 9, 2009 at 8:54 pm Posted by gewg_ (4444 messages posted) sekirt wrote: |I ask this in jest...did you hack my computer? | Wasn't me. {Tries to look as innocent as possible.} |Reason I ask, I picked up a trojan! Dec 3, 2009 @ 2:36am. |First ever. Some coincidence! |Our discussions and then Wham! a trojan shows up! | I'm very anti-mysticism but it's days like this that give me pause. 8-) |Bad one[...]Not enough to make me switch to Linux though. LOL | I just got the slightest twinge of schadenfreude. I'm telling you, you're really missing the boat. cache of http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/10things/?p=1194 [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: "Ridiculous" Wednesday, December 9, 2009 at 11:50 pm Posted by sekirt (297 messages posted) quote: "I just got the slightest twinge of schadenfreude I figured it would make your day! :) I got the lyrics though! Yay! Walk Of Life Lyrics Dire Straits Here comes Johnny singing oldies, goldies Be-Bop-A-Lula, Baby What I Say Here comes Johnny singing I Gotta Woman Down in the tunnels, trying to make it pay He got the action, he got the motion Oh Yeah the boy can play Dedication devotion Turning all the night time into the day quote: "I'm telling you, you're really missing the boat." 10 Windows features I would like to see in Linux | 10 Things | TechRepublic.com: http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/10things/?p=1196 At least the guy is fair. sekirt On Wednesday, December 9, 2009 at 8:54 pm, gewg_ wrote: >sekirt wrote: >|I ask this in jest...did you hack my computer? >| >Wasn't me. {Tries to look as innocent as possible.} > >|Reason I ask, I picked up a trojan! Dec 3, 2009 @ 2:36am. >|First ever. Some coincidence! >|Our discussions and then Wham! a trojan shows up! >| >I'm very anti-mysticism but it's days like this that give me pause. 8-) > >|Bad one[...]Not enough to make me switch to Linux though. LOL >| >I just got the slightest twinge of schadenfreude. >I'm telling you, you're really missing the boat. >cache >of http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/10things/?p=1194 > [Reply or follow-up to this message] The relative ease of tasks under ______ Thursday, December 10, 2009 at 9:13 am Posted by gewg_ (4444 messages posted) sekirt wrote: |I got the lyrics though! Yay! | Here's how I get lyrics: http://google.com/search?q=Lyrics+"Walk.Of.Life"&num=100 Middle-click[1] on the Cached link to get the results in a new tab. If your connection is slow and/or your reaction time is fast, you can use the Stop button or Esc key to interrupt the retrieval; append &strip=1 to the URL and hit Enter. (If you didn't interupt before the page started displaying, hit Ctrl+Enter and that will give you a fresh tab (again: [1]).) Now you get the page without graphics[2] and WITHOUT SCRIPTS. I note that Google _used_ to also include page sizes in their listings (which were a lot more useful than those stupid Similar links that they kept). In addition, routinely using a NoScript extension would avoid a lot of nasties. The one for Mozilla/Gecko browsers is exceptionally useful as it can whitelist; there are several (lesser efforts) floating around for Internet Exploder as well. ...and pages that won't do squat without scripts running, I can do without. gewg_ wrote: ||http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/10things/?p=1196 |"10 Windows features I would like to see in Linux" | |At least the guy is fair. | Well, on Item 10 he missed mentioning the 3rd-party SysInfo utilities for Windoze --but, yeah--he did back up his opinions with hard facts at every turn. It's difficult to find a point at which Linux isn't superior in the way it does things. "Windoze does things the way I'm used to" is NOT the same as "Windoze is easier". Old addage: "The only intuitive interface is the nipple; everything else is learned." ...and with Linux, learning new tricks not only makes things easier, you can often do things that aren't even possible with systems running M$'s junk (with the GUI-centric ecosystem). Where Linux REALLY shines relative to M$'s skimpy offerings is getting it to do stuff that doesn't come with the base install. Vetted repositories of software are SO cool and Linux package managers just leave Windoze users with their jaws agape.[3] OTOH, with Windoze, you do A LOT of searching for 3rd-party stuff and have to go to a lot of potentially dodgy sites to get those. Add in a browser that is infection-friendly and a naive user --or just an unlucky user--and you have a recipe for disaster. In short: The antithesis of Linux. [1] I'm ASSuMEing a Mozilla/Gecko browser. YMMV. [2] Background images excepted--unless you have an extension to handle those. [3] Being able to actually USE the computer during an update/install process just blows the minds of Windoze users. No reboots is very cool as well. [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: The relative ease of tasks under ______ Thursday, December 10, 2009 at 9:30 am Posted by sekirt (297 messages posted) Thanks. A "NoScript extension" would be against my very nature though. That is one thing I want my browser to do, handle scripts. sekirt On Thursday, December 10, 2009 at 9:13 am, gewg_ wrote: >sekirt wrote: >|I got the lyrics though! Yay! >| >Here's how I get lyrics: >http://google.com/search?q=Lyrics+"Walk.Of.Life"&num=100 >Middle-click[1] on the Cached link to get the results in a new tab. >If your connection is slow and/or your reaction time is fast, >you can use the Stop button or Esc key to interrupt the retrieval; >append &strip=1 to the URL and hit Enter. >(If you didn't interupt before the page started displaying, >hit Ctrl+Enter and that will give you a fresh tab (again: [1]).) >Now you get the page without graphics[2] and WITHOUT SCRIPTS. > >I note that Google _used_ to also include page sizes in their listings >(which were a lot more useful than those stupid Similar links that they kept). > >In addition, routinely using a NoScript extension would avoid a lot of nasties. >The one for Mozilla/Gecko browsers is exceptionally useful as it can whitelist; >there are several (lesser efforts) floating around for Internet Exploder as well. >...and pages that won't do squat without scripts running, I can do without. > >gewg_ wrote: >||http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/10things/?p=1196 > >|"10 Windows features I would like to see in Linux" >| >|At least the guy is fair. >| >Well, on Item 10 he missed mentioning the 3rd-party SysInfo utilities for Windoze >--but, yeah--he did back up his opinions with hard facts at every turn. > >It's difficult to find a point at which Linux isn't superior in the way it does things. >"Windoze does things the way I'm used to" >is NOT the same as "Windoze is easier". >Old addage: "The only intuitive interface is the nipple; everything else is learned." >...and with Linux, learning new tricks not only makes things easier, >you can often do things that aren't even possible >with systems running M$'s junk (with the GUI-centric ecosystem). > >Where Linux REALLY shines relative to M$'s skimpy offerings >is getting it to do stuff that doesn't come with the base install. >Vetted repositories of software are SO cool >and Linux package managers just leave Windoze users with their jaws agape.[3] > >OTOH, with Windoze, you do A LOT of searching for 3rd-party stuff >and have to go to a lot of potentially dodgy sites to get those. >Add in a browser that is infection-friendly and a naive user >--or just an unlucky user--and you have a recipe for disaster. >In short: The antithesis of Linux. > > >[1] I'm ASSuMEing a Mozilla/Gecko browser. YMMV. > >[2] Background images excepted--unless you have an extension to handle those. > >[3] Being able to actually USE the computer during an update/install process >just blows the minds of Windoze users. No reboots is very cool as well. [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: The relative ease of tasks under ______ Thursday, December 10, 2009 at 10:27 am Posted by gewg_ (4444 messages posted) sekirt wrote: |A "NoScript extension" would be against my very nature though. |That is one thing I want my browser to do, handle scripts. You missed the part where I said whitelist. Again, the Open Source offering is FAR superior to the M$-supplied "equivalent" --even after applying 3rd-party tweaks to Redmond's junk. [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: The relative ease of tasks under ______ Thursday, December 10, 2009 at 3:38 pm Posted by sekirt (297 messages posted) quote: "You missed the part where I said whitelist" No, didn't miss it. Wouldn't use FF, so didn't seem to apply. I don't have any real problems with IE and I like it. Tried FF and just didn't like it. Again, security has never been a major issue for me. Still not. It was only one stray infection. I don't do host files, whitelists or blacklists. Maybe sometime in the future I might change my mind? But maybe by then if I have to go to a lot of bother, I'd even switch to Linux? Once computing becomes even more effort than what it is, I may just shut it off and do something else. As to that lyrics site, I got the lyrics but I couldn't tell you the name of the site to save my life. I'd be happy to warn everyone about the site but have no idea which site it was. Went there. Got lyrics and probably won't ever see that site again. sekirt On Thursday, December 10, 2009 at 10:27 am, gewg_ wrote: >sekirt wrote: >|A "NoScript extension" would be against my very nature though. >|That is one thing I want my browser to do, handle scripts. > >You missed the part where I said whitelist. >Again, the Open Source offering is FAR superior to the M$-supplied "equivalent" >--even after applying 3rd-party tweaks to Redmond's junk. > [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: The relative ease of tasks under ______ Thursday, December 10, 2009 at 5:31 pm Posted by gewg_ (4444 messages posted) sekirt wrote: |Wouldn't use FF, so didn't seem to apply. |I don't have any real problems with IE and I like it. | Reminds me of the line sometimes repeated years ago by a coworker 30+ years my senior: "'To each his own', said the old woman as she kissed the cow." |Tried FF and just didn't like it. | Same here. That's why I state the alternate browser as "Mozilla/Gecko". SeaMonkey is an online suite that has its own UI and it can use many of the same extensions as Firefox. NOTE: SM is currently undergoing a changeover from an old version of the Gecko engine to the current one used by Firefox3. I'm waiting for the dust to settle around SeaMonkey 2.0 before I wade in. SeaMonkey 1.1.18 was a recently update to the old trunk and it is still available. Note to others: Firefox3 is not supported under Win9x **unless KernelEx is installed**. KernelEx will also get other things working under Win9x (e.g. OpenOffice3). SeaMonkey2 is not supported under Win9x at all. It is supported under Linux and Linux is available for FREE. (Win9x support for other apps is disappearing as well, so, to logical people, FREE Linux looks better every day.) [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: The relative ease of tasks under ______ Thursday, December 10, 2009 at 10:04 pm Posted by sekirt (297 messages posted) I didn't have enough memory to use FF on Win98, that was a strike against it back then. I did things people here said couldn't be done on 40MB of RAM. Sure more would have been better but there was nothing I wanted to do that I didn't do. IE ran fine on Win98 - that was one good benefit for IE. Tried FF with Vista and didn't care for it. Never got around to trying Sea Monkey. Will keep it in mind. sekirt On Thursday, December 10, 2009 at 5:31 pm, gewg_ wrote: >sekirt wrote: >|Wouldn't use FF, so didn't seem to apply. >|I don't have any real problems with IE and I like it. >| >Reminds me of the line sometimes repeated years ago >by a coworker 30+ years my senior: >"'To each his own', said the old woman as she kissed the cow." > >|Tried FF and just didn't like it. >| >Same here. That's why I state the alternate browser as "Mozilla/Gecko". >SeaMonkey is an online suite that has its own UI >and it can use many of the same extensions as Firefox. >NOTE: SM is currently undergoing a changeover >from an old version of the Gecko engine to the current one used by Firefox3. >I'm waiting for the dust to settle around SeaMonkey 2.0 before I wade in. >SeaMonkey 1.1.18 was a recently update to the old trunk and it is still available. > >Note to others: >Firefox3 is not supported under Win9x **unless KernelEx is installed**. >KernelEx will also get other things working under Win9x (e.g. OpenOffice3). > >SeaMonkey2 is not supported under Win9x at all. >It is supported under Linux and Linux is available for FREE. >(Win9x support for other apps is disappearing as well, >so, to logical people, FREE Linux looks better every day.) > [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: The relative ease of tasks under ______ Sunday, December 13, 2009 at 3:52 pm Posted by sekirt (297 messages posted) Hope this isn't OT for this thread. :rolleyes: Came across an article you might like about browsers. K-Meleon Firefox Comparison and History sekirt [Reply or follow-up to this message] Browsers (More thread drift) Sunday, December 13, 2009 at 7:33 pm Posted by gewg_ (4444 messages posted) sekirt wrote: |Hope this isn't OT for this thread. :rolleyes: | WAY too late on that one. 8-) |an article you might like |K-Meleon Firefox Comparison and History | I had thought K-Meleon was based on Firefox. That item points out that it preceded FF and is based on Netscape. The upside is that it is built with native Windoze widgets, so code reuse makes it lighter. The big downside is that it can't use Firefox extensions. (I mentioned that to Kiwi when he was looking for a light browser.) Another obvious downside is that is not cross-platform. The XUL thing has also been a thorn for users of SeaMonkey 1.x who wanted to run (XUL-based) Firefox extensions. With SM2's use of the new engine, that is less of a barrier. ...then there's the memory leaks thing inherent with XUL. With Google Chrome (and the other browsers based on KHTML/WebKit) being multi-process--instead of just multi-thread-- browsers descended from Netscape are starting to show their ages. Even IE8 is multi-process fercrisesake. Google Chrome has made some recent strides into an extension ecosystem. When that matures (e.g. a real AdBlock capability[1]), Gecko-based browsers will have some serious competition. K-Meleon's roots are even older--and, again, the single-platform thing. whocares does make the point of how the bundling of IE[2] stifled progress in browsers for years. The only way to beat it was with a FREE offering. (Outside the USA especially) we're seeing that repeated on the OS front. [1] The current junk for Chrome that purports to "block" stuff actually downloads it then refuses to display it (hides it); you still take the bandwidth hit (and pageload delays) and you still ping all the web bugs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_bug Whenever Chrome and AdBlock are mentioned together, the point is always made that Google is an advertising company. It's obvious why they've been dragging their feet on the extension framework. The privacy issues are also prominently mentioned--among other irritations (thus the fork of that Open Source project). cache of http://www.security-net.biz/wsw/index.php?p=200&bl=245 Note for 9x users: WebKit-based browsers work under Linux, OS X, and XP or later. ...though there is an option for 9x users: http://annoyances.org/exec/forum/win98/t1253992383 [2] The way M$ screwed Spyglass, Inc. in the process is something more companies would have done well to heed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spyglass,_Inc. [Reply or follow-up to this message] The "only has security via obscurity" thing debunked once again Friday, January 21, 2011 at 3:58 pm Posted by gewg_ (4444 messages posted) gewg_ wrote: ||(Linux guys DON'T have to worry about infections). sekirt wrote: |You wouldn't be able to say that if Linux had, |say, 50% or more of the market. :The fans of other OS often claim :that given a large enough share to bother malware creators[,] :GNU/Linux will be a target[,] :so there’s no need to migrate to GNU/Linux for security. Chuckle... : :Here’s an example of a "botnet" :that does target every PC running Java, including GNU/Linux. :They show that about 16 per cent of infections hit Macs. :[...] :MacOS has a much lower share than 16%. :[...] :They didn’t show any infections on Linux machines. :[...] :Jnanabot attacks on the open source platform weren’t able to survive a reboot : cache of http://mrpogson.com/2011/01/20/an-example-of-malware-in-gnulinux/ [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: The "only has security via obscurity" thing debunked once again Friday, January 21, 2011 at 8:06 pm Posted by sekirt (297 messages posted) Gewg - Happy New Year.  They still don't lock these threads? LOL I don't feel like putting up a big defense because you know I don't pay much attention to security.  It looks like no one really knows the answer.  The author of your article doesn't know either. Quote: "Why would the malware authours not go after GNU/Linux machines using Java?- Robert Pogson" Could be a faulty bot for all I know.  It could be the bot knows it is Linux and because there are not enough of them around, they reject infecting it. I've pulled out of all computer forums and giving my mind a well deserved rest.  Just going to let the world pass me by and let them duke it out.  If Linux wins, so be it. sekirt [Reply or follow-up to this message] Tip: Use one of the [Reply or follow-up to this message] links above to add a message to this thread Search this forum Start a new thread on a different subject Report abuse of the forum Return to the Windows 98 Discussion Forum