Searching \ for '[OT]: Real Computer Alert' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=real+computer+alert
Search entire site for: 'Real Computer Alert'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[OT]: Real Computer Alert'
2001\04\03@194546 by Andy N1YEW

picon face
This is an official computer alert.

Andrew N1YEW
----- Original Message -----
From: CERT Advisory <spam_OUTcert-advisoryTakeThisOuTspamcert.org>
To: <.....cert-advisoryKILLspamspam@spam@cert.org>
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 2:02 PM
Subject: CERT Advisory CA-2001-06


{Quote hidden}

www.microsoft.com/windows/ie/download/critical/Q290108/default.asp
{Quote hidden}

www.microsoft.com/windows/ie/download/critical/Q290108/default.asp
{Quote hidden}

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics


2001\04\03@213127 by Damon Hopkins

flavicon
face
Andy N1YEW wrote:
> > Systems Affected
> >
> >      * All versions of Microsoft Internet Explorer 5.5 SP1 or earlier,
> >        except IE 5.01 SP2
> >      * Any software which utilizes vulnerable versions of Internet
> >        Explorer to render HTML

Solution: Use Netscape

               Damon Hopkins

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics


2001\04\03@223150 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face
> Andy N1YEW wrote:
> > > Systems Affected
> > >
> > >      * All versions of Microsoft Internet Explorer 5.5 SP1 or earlier,
> > >        except IE 5.01 SP2
> > >      * Any software which utilizes vulnerable versions of Internet
> > >        Explorer to render HTML
>
> Solution: Use Netscape

       A good idea, if Netscape ever ran for me without crashing. Netscape is the
ONLY app I use in Linux that ALWAYS crashes, in an hour it crashes at least
3 or 4 times. The windows version is better, but not by much. People have
told me the reason Netscape crashes is because it has problems with Java and
for Netscape not to crash I should disable Java. This is just not
acceptable, although I personally don't like Java much alot of what I do on
the web requires Java, and for that reason Netscape is not for me (WHEN I
have a choice). Just my two cents. I hear Netscape 6 is even worse. TTYL

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics


2001\04\03@230941 by trm

flavicon
face
I gave up on Ver 6 when  I upgraded to 6.01. It allowed me to download my emails, but
not open them. Before that it would intermittently "lose" what was in the Inbox when I
exited 7 re-entered Netscape. "magically" they would reapear a few restarts later. Uh
?? I've gone back to Ver. 4.71. Most of the problems are gone, but I "lost" about 100
emails (Mostly from PICLIST) to Ver. 6.01.
Ver 6 is also MUCH slower than Ver 4.71.

Ted Melton

Herbert Graf wrote:

{Quote hidden}

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics


2001\04\04@004242 by Nicholas Irias

flavicon
face
If you crash 3 or 4 times per hour, the problem is probably your Linux OS
rather than Windows or Netscape.  I run the much maligned Windows NT with
the much maligned Outbreak and  Internet Exploder, and I measure the time
between crashes in months.

People only write viruses for Windows, so Linux enjoys a bit of "security
through obscurity".  A Linux user laughing at a Windows user who has
encountered a virus is like a caveman laughing at a motorist whose gas tank
has been sugared.  Sugar may not hurt the caveman's sandals, but when the
day is done, he is still a caveman using an outmoded means of
transportation.


{Original Message removed}

2001\04\04@021858 by Scott Dattalo

face
flavicon
face
On Tue, 3 Apr 2001, Nicholas Irias wrote:

> If you crash 3 or 4 times per hour, the problem is probably your Linux OS
> rather than Windows or Netscape.  I run the much maligned Windows NT with
> the much maligned Outbreak and  Internet Exploder, and I measure the time
> between crashes in months.
>
> People only write viruses for Windows, so Linux enjoys a bit of "security
> through obscurity".  A Linux user laughing at a Windows user who has
> encountered a virus is like a caveman laughing at a motorist whose gas tank
> has been sugared.  Sugar may not hurt the caveman's sandals, but when the
> day is done, he is still a caveman using an outmoded means of
> transportation.

Had you mentioned TV's, you'd been 3 for 3 for things I seldom do.

Your caveman metaphor is most enlightening - though in my case I exchange the
sugar for traffic and the sandals for Speedplays. I often considered abandoning
my outmoded form of travel, especially since on most mornings it just saves 5
minutes on my 25 minute commute. Besides, my 14 year old nissan 200sux could use
more attention.

Excluding bad hardware - I've never once have had Linux crash. Period. My
current box has been up:

$ uptime
10:39pm  up 80 days, 12:26,  8 users,  load average: 0.00, 0.01, 0.00

Which is amazing considering that my two year old daughter loves to push
buttons. So I doubt that Linux is the reason Netscape is crashing on the
original poster's computer.

But the real issue I'd like to address in this totally Off Topic thread is the
false assertion that Linux has security through obscurity. Linux is hardly
obscure. Granted it's not as ubiquitous as windows, and probably won't be for
the near future, but there are numerous places it's used. I submit that Linux is
secure (from viruses) because it clearly delineates user space and OS space,
whereas windows blurs the two. W9x makes no distinction. NT/W2k endeavor to make
a distinction by adding an Administrator mode. Most people I know defeat this by
giving users (i.e. themselves) administrative priviledges because it's too
cumbersome to switch between user mode and administrative mode. (Correct me if
I'm wrong, but it's not possible to have an administrator and user
simultaneously logged into a "stock" NT/2k box). I consider this blurring
between the user and superuser a fundamental design error in all of MS's OSes.
This design error is what makes Microsoft's OSes vulnerable to (and the target
of) virus attacks and GNU/Linux (and Unix in general ) relatively impervious.

If you care to hear my opinions about other windows fundamental design errors,
I can climb to a higher rung on the soap box.

Scott

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.


2001\04\04@024916 by Neil Bradley

flavicon
face
> Excluding bad hardware - I've never once have had Linux crash. Period.

You are unique. I work with Linux daily and it not only buckles under
heavy load it also kernel traps several times a month. I've not seen this
behavior in Windows 2000 (though Win98 and the others is an entirely
different story) or under FreeBSD.

> My
> current box has been up:
> $ uptime
>  10:39pm  up 80 days, 12:26,  8 users,  load average: 0.00, 0.01, 0.00

With a load average of near 0. Compare Linux to FreeBSD 4.0:

[SYNTHCOM->neil: 1053] uptime
11:46PM  up 107 days, 22:10, 3 users, load averages: 2.54, 2.45, 2.27

Prior to that (had to shut down because of an extended power failure my
UPS couldn't handle):

[SYNTHCOM->neil: 532] uptime
6:58PM  up 209 days,  2:16, 5 users, load averages: 1.95, 2.02, 1.99

And that was when I installed FreeBSD 4.0. Prior to that it had been
running a bit over a year - each time rebooted because of failed hardware
or upgrades.

Oh, and the load average is always over 2 but has no effect on system
performance. ;-) Linux starts getting sluggish after a load average of
1.00.

> false assertion that Linux has security through obscurity. Linux is hardly
> obscure.

It's quite obscure, actually. IT can't decide if it's POSIX compliant,
4.4BSD, AT&T or its own thing.

> the near future, but there are numerous places it's used. I submit that Linux is
> secure (from viruses) because it clearly delineates user space and OS space,

Lots of people (ignoranly) log in as root. It's just as easy to have a
virus propogate, or do something sneaky like putting "." in someone's
path. It has nothing to do with "user" or "OS" space.

> whereas windows blurs the two. W9x makes no distinction. NT/W2k endeavor to make
> a distinction by adding an Administrator mode. Most people I know defeat this by
> giving users (i.e. themselves) administrative priviledges because it's too
> cumbersome to switch between user mode and administrative mode. (Correct me if
> I'm wrong, but it's not possible to have an administrator and user
> simultaneously logged into a "stock" NT/2k box).

Yes it is - I do remote configuration to our 2K boxes at work with just
such an approach. And "administrator" isn't a mode, it's a default account
created that grants access to everything. Viruses can still be destructive
in user space.

> between the user and superuser a fundamental design error in all of MS's OSes.
> This design error is what makes Microsoft's OSes vulnerable to (and the target
> of) virus attacks and GNU/Linux (and Unix in general ) relatively impervious.

> If you care to hear my opinions about other windows fundamental design errors,
> I can climb to a higher rung on the soap box.

Feel free to talk about Windows fundamental design errors, but Linux is
OOOZING with them judging by the number of security problems found. 1/5th
the "market" of Windows and has 3X the reported security holes.

-->Neil

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Neil Bradley            There'd be no more N'Sync if everyone had guns.
Synthcom Systems, Inc.
ICQ #29402898

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.


2001\04\04@030328 by Michael Rigby-Jones

flavicon
face
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nicholas Irias [SMTP:EraseMEniriasspam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTPACBELL.NET]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2001 5:10 AM
> To:   PICLISTspamspam_OUTMITVMA.MIT.EDU
> Subject:      Re: [OT]: Real Computer Alert
>
> If you crash 3 or 4 times per hour, the problem is probably your Linux OS
> rather than Windows or Netscape.  I run the much maligned Windows NT with
> the much maligned Outbreak and  Internet Exploder, and I measure the time
> between crashes in months.
>
> People only write viruses for Windows, so Linux enjoys a bit of "security
> through obscurity".  A Linux user laughing at a Windows user who has
> encountered a virus is like a caveman laughing at a motorist whose gas
> tank
> has been sugared.  Sugar may not hurt the caveman's sandals, but when the
> day is done, he is still a caveman using an outmoded means of
> transportation.
>
Walking is outmoded?  Actually, if you live in the states I guess you are
correct.  During my time over there stayiong with friends, I offered to walk
the half mile down to the local shops to get some groceries, and they
thought I was mad to consider walking.  I found out why when I tried to walk
there, the sidewalk stopped at the end of the street!!

Mike

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.


2001\04\04@031639 by dr. Imre Bartfai

flavicon
face
Hi,

maybe. I looked for a good Netscape version until I found 4.76 (I believe
this is the last non-Java version). Using with Xfree 4.0.3, crash is
rather seldom.

I hope this helps.

Regards,
Imre

PS: I use SuSE Linux 7.0, but I updated to glibc 2.2.

On Tue, 3 Apr 2001, Herbert Graf wrote:

{Quote hidden}

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.


2001\04\04@055339 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
> whereas windows blurs the two. W9x makes no distinction. NT/W2k endeavor to
make
> a distinction by adding an Administrator mode. Most people I know defeat this
by
> giving users (i.e. themselves) administrative priviledges because it's too
> cumbersome to switch between user mode and administrative mode. (Correct me if
> I'm wrong, but it's not possible to have an administrator and user
> simultaneously logged into a "stock" NT/2k box).

I get the feeling that this is not the issue, but rather how the code is run,
i.e. in Intel parlance is it run in Ring 0 (highest accessibility to the
hardware) or Ring 3 (no accessibility to the hardware). NT uses the security of
the various rings, as does the various flavours of Unix AFAIK, but the Win9x
make limited if any use of this.

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.


2001\04\04@062445 by Wojciech Zabolotny

flavicon
picon face
On Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 12:00:21AM -0700, Neil Bradley wrote:
> > Excluding bad hardware - I've never once have had Linux crash. Period.
>
> You are unique. I work with Linux daily and it not only buckles under
> heavy load it also kernel traps several times a month. I've not seen this
> behavior in Windows 2000 (though Win98 and the others is an entirely
> different story) or under FreeBSD.
>

Sounds like a misconfigured kernel :-(. Do you use any experimental drivers?
I never had such problems when using self compiled kernels.

I often write the CDR, compile the program and work interactively (eg. with
editor or WWW browser) at the same time, additionally with a few remote
users on board (Yes, I know that CD Writer in the multiuser server is not
the best idea, but runing cdrecord through "nice --19" works perfectly) -
compare it with Windows, where you have to deactivate screen saver when
writing CDRs.

When I first worked with NT4.0 it really seemed to me faster, than Linux
running on the same hardware, but that impression disappeared immediately,
when Windows started to use the virtual memory - I had to wait a few seconds
when switching the applications. The main problem - both in Linux and in
Windows is the memory...

And the last thing. I really want to know that my OS does not contain any
"back doors" left intentionally by the software vendor or their employees.
This is only possible with the Open Source OS'es.

--
                               Wojciech Zabolotny
                               @spam@wzabKILLspamspamise.pw.edu.pl

http://www.debian.org : Use Linux! Save your data and time.

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.


2001\04\04@070913 by Wojciech Zabolotny

flavicon
picon face
On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 09:09:32PM -0700, Nicholas Irias wrote:
> If you crash 3 or 4 times per hour, the problem is probably your Linux OS
> rather than Windows or Netscape.  I run the much maligned Windows NT with
> the much maligned Outbreak and  Internet Exploder, and I measure the time
> between crashes in months.
>
> People only write viruses for Windows, so Linux enjoys a bit of "security
> through obscurity".  A Linux user laughing at a Windows user who has
> encountered a virus is like a caveman laughing at a motorist whose gas tank
> has been sugared.  Sugar may not hurt the caveman's sandals, but when the
> day is done, he is still a caveman using an outmoded means of
> transportation.
>

"Security through obscurity" in the Open Source OS????
Sounds very funny!!!
BTW. I have some "multiboot" machines, where both Linux and Windows are
used, and "crash rate" is much higher when running under Windows.
Additionally the TCO is much lower in the case of Linux, because all
important services and fundamental applications are included in the OS
distribution.
May be I'm a caveman, but if I can have my job done three times faster with
my "outdated" tools (like LaTeX instead of Word), then I really prefere to use
them.
--
                               Wojciech Zabolotny
                               KILLspamwzabKILLspamspamise.pw.edu.pl

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.


2001\04\04@073231 by Steven J. Devine

flavicon
face
> If you crash 3 or 4 times per hour, the problem is probably your Linux OS
> rather than Windows or Netscape.  I run the much maligned Windows NT with
> the much maligned Outbreak and  Internet Exploder, and I measure the time
> between crashes in months.

Perhaps a configuration issue and/or bad install, as I have four linux machines, one which has been running 24x7 since 1994, two since 97, the other more recent.  All of which run Netscape without crashes of any regularity.

(tho the older machine uses an older version of Netscape... hey, why mess with it if it works?)

Steve

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.


2001\04\04@091205 by Nicholas Irias

flavicon
face
Linux is obscure just as an "obscure poet" is obscure.  There has been an
effort to publish source code, but only a  handfull of people use it.  And
that obscurity provides security by discouraging virus writers, who dont
want to spend days cooking up a virus for a platform that has too few
potential carriers and victims.  More results if you write a virus aimed at
millions of users than one aimed at hundreds of users.


{Original Message removed}

2001\04\04@093108 by Dale Botkin

flavicon
face
On Wed, 4 Apr 2001, Neil Bradley wrote:

> > Excluding bad hardware - I've never once have had Linux crash. Period.
>
> You are unique. I work with Linux daily and it not only buckles under
> heavy load it also kernel traps several times a month. I've not seen this
> behavior in Windows 2000 (though Win98 and the others is an entirely
> different story) or under FreeBSD.

He's nowhere near unique.  I have used Linux on production systems
handling heavy loads -- it simply does not crash unless you've badly
misconfigured something.  Of course you *can* hose pretty much any OS
badly enough to make it unstable -- if you try hard enough.  Reliability
and robustness of any OS is dependent to some degree on the competency of
the administrator and operator.

> Feel free to talk about Windows fundamental design errors, but Linux is
> OOOZING with them judging by the number of security problems found. 1/5th
> the "market" of Windows and has 3X the reported security holes.

'Scuse me?  Where on Earth did *those* figures come from?  Never mind, I'm
sure there are sources to back up pretty much any conceivable opinion.

I don't want to step into this holy war...  but let me share my personal
experience.  I have been an NT admin and managed a group of very good,
experienced NT people. I have also run many BSD, Linux and Solaris boxes,
and currently work in a large enterprise environment where NT is used for
desktops and "business" apps, and Sun/Solaris is used for producton.

NT systems can be made more or less reliable as long as they are regularly
rebooted and as long as limit each system to a single function.  UNIX
systems can be made reliable by simply keeping users off them - "bouncing"
a UNIX server to correct a problem is an exceedingly rare occurrence,
whereas it's fairly common on the NT boxes.

At home I run 98, NT and Linux.  The Windows machines have been reloaded a
few times and are OK as long as they're regularly rebooted and you don't
keep anything critical on the disk without a backup.  The Linux machine is
a file server, DNS, SMTP, POP3, Web, DHCP, firewall, network backup, MP3
server, development, and user shell box.  I get concerned if it's rebooted
more tan once or twice a year, and that's usually to physically move it.
It's running the same RedHat 5.2 I installed in 1998 (though with a
current kernel).

The NT box is a PII-333 with 128MB of memory and is acceptably quick.
When it dies and I'm not there, it stays dead until I get hom to fix it.

The Linux box is a Pentium-200 with 96MB.  When it has problems I can fix
them from anywhere.

Guess which one has the tape backp drive attached?

Dale
---
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new
discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it!) but "That's funny ..."
               -- Isaac Asimov

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.


2001\04\04@093259 by Bond Peter S-petbond1

flavicon
face
> Linux is obscure just as an "obscure poet" is obscure.  There
> has been an
> effort to publish source code, but only a  handfull of people
> use it.  And

This probably depends entirely upon your environment.  From my POV, Linux is
anything *but* obscure - in the server market it has been doing particularly
well (can't find the figures ATM, and as a zealot I'm probably not supposed
to quote them anyway <G>); in the embedded market it is doing pretty well
(look at Lynx RTS as were/LynuxWorks now - they have AFAICT ditched their
home-grown LynxOS completely to move over to Linux).  Our mob have a Linux 5
9's telecomms server offering.  As a user friendly desktop system, it is
inadequate IMHO - I'm quite happy using it as a desktop OS, but it isn't for
everyone.

I think you'll find that far more than a handful are using it.

> that obscurity provides security by discouraging virus
> writers, who dont
> want to spend days cooking up a virus for a platform that has too few
> potential carriers and victims.  More results if you write a
> virus aimed at
> millions of users than one aimed at hundreds of users.

Making an OS open source enables anyone attacking it to see what possible
attacks could work.  Contrarywise, making it closed source should make it
more difficult to attack...  Except - open source code can be peer reviewed
by far more people than a commercial offering such as the WinX products.  I
do agree to some extent with what you say on target "audiences", but it
really is much, much easier to write virii for WinX machines than Linux -
not that Linux is immune, far from it - but the OS is far less resilient
than it ever should be.  Also, with Linux the speed of response to an attack
is far faster than Microsoft could ever manage.  Even the commercial
versions of Linux tend to be much faster in responding to security
advisories.

One other point about virus "writers" - a lot of them are using virus
creation kits, for want of a better term.  An engine is developed by one
individual with some skill (note - whilst I don't like what they do, the
occasional one or two are very, very good at it); this is then adopted by
the script kiddies who attach their own payloads.  Different virus
signature, so a new virus.

Peter

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.


2001\04\04@093927 by Andy N1YEW

picon face
My LiNuX box never crashes(ex hardware stuff)

andy
----- Original Message -----
From: Dale Botkin <RemoveMEdaleTakeThisOuTspamBOTKIN.ORG>
To: <spamBeGonePICLISTspamBeGonespamMITVMA.MIT.EDU>
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2001 9:30 AM
Subject: Re: [OT]: Real Computer Alert


> On Wed, 4 Apr 2001, Neil Bradley wrote:
>
> > > Excluding bad hardware - I've never once have had Linux crash. Period.
> >
> > You are unique. I work with Linux daily and it not only buckles under
> > heavy load it also kernel traps several times a month. I've not seen
this
{Quote hidden}

1/5th
{Quote hidden}

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.


2001\04\04@095856 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face
> If you crash 3 or 4 times per hour, the problem is probably your Linux OS
> rather than Windows or Netscape.  I run the much maligned Windows NT with
> the much maligned Outbreak and  Internet Exploder, and I measure the time
> between crashes in months.

       It's not the OS, that's for sure, both the IRIX version and Linux version
of Netscape I use do the same thing. Netscape on my home Linux machine
crashes nearly as often. On Windows it's actually a LITTLE more stable, but
not much. Now it IS the sites I visit, which uses heavy Java, but if Opera
and IE work fine without crashing so should Netscape.

> People only write viruses for Windows, so Linux enjoys a bit of "security
> through obscurity".  A Linux user laughing at a Windows user who has
> encountered a virus is like a caveman laughing at a motorist
> whose gas tank
> has been sugared.  Sugar may not hurt the caveman's sandals, but when the
> day is done, he is still a caveman using an outmoded means of
> transportation.

       True but Linux is no longer in complete obscurity and malicious code will
begin to be created for it. The one REAL benefit of Linux though is that
root access IS privileged, a new process CANNOT be started without root's
access, even NT has back doors that allow a process to gain root access.
TTYL

> {Original Message removed}

2001\04\04@101246 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face
Unfortunately the version of Netscape I run isn't my choice, I was talking
about my Universities systems, I doubt they'd approve of me gaining root and
installing an updated Netscape on every machine. FWIW I think we are running
4.76 but I'm not sure, I am sure it's 4.7something. TTYL

> {Original Message removed}

2001\04\04@101308 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face
> Feel free to talk about Windows fundamental design errors, but Linux is
> OOOZING with them judging by the number of security problems found. 1/5th
> the "market" of Windows and has 3X the reported security holes.

       This is unfair. Linux is fully open source, meaning finding holes is VERY
easy and because so many different people work on Linux the holes are found
with a large volume. Windows is closed source, making finding holes
EXTREMELY difficult. I personally believe that if Windows source were
released the number of holes found would be so huge people would just drop
the idea of ever running Windows to begin with. TTYL

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.


2001\04\04@102347 by David VanHorn

flavicon
face
>
>Feel free to talk about Windows fundamental design errors, but Linux is
>OOOZING with them judging by the number of security problems found. 1/5th
>the "market" of Windows and has 3X the reported security holes.

So because Winblows dosen't report theirs, it's somehow better?

In my experience, Linux has reports of holes because people are actively
looking for them.
They look, because the majority of the servers on the net are running Linux.
My personal server has been up for over a year, never rebooted. It's 300
miles away from me.
Would I attempt this with Windows? No way.

--
Dave's Engineering Page: http://www.dvanhorn.org
Where's dave? http://www.findu.com/cgi-bin/find.cgi?kc6ete-9

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.


2001\04\04@103606 by Andrew Kunz

flavicon
face
>installing an updated Netscape on every machine. FWIW I think we are running
>4.76 but I'm not sure, I am sure it's 4.7something. TTYL

4.5 is much more stable.

Andy

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.


2001\04\04@105458 by Bond Peter S-petbond1

flavicon
face
> Unfortunately the version of Netscape I run isn't my choice,
> I was talking
> about my Universities systems, I doubt they'd approve of me
> gaining root and
> installing an updated Netscape on every machine. FWIW I think
> we are running
> 4.76 but I'm not sure, I am sure it's 4.7something. TTYL

Sounds familiar.  My uni *never* approved of my gaining root...

Peter

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.


2001\04\04@115145 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>Sounds familiar.  My uni *never* approved of my gaining root...

You might make like a weed and grow ??? :)

sorry couldn't resist.

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.


2001\04\04@115516 by Bond Peter S-petbond1

flavicon
face
> >Sounds familiar.  My uni *never* approved of my gaining root...
>
> You might make like a weed and grow ??? :)

Too many grad students went that way...  <G>

Peter

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.


2001\04\04@124104 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face
Well I also from time to time use 4.5 on IRIX and it crashes just as often.
TTYL

{Quote hidden}

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.


2001\04\04@130753 by jamesnewton

face picon face
My uninformed and minor experience agrees with Neil's statement here. My NT,
98, etc.. boxes don't get hacked (knock on silicon) as long as I keep up
with the free, easy to install, automatic, Microsoft provided security
updates. If I open the ports on my Red Hat Linux box to other than a few
static IP's, it gets rooted within days.

Yes, If I knew what I was doing with Linux I could probably keep it secure
by spending some time on it.

Seems like you can pay Microsoft for the software and support but the
service is free or you can pay Red Hat nothing for the software and some for
support and pay Linux gurus for the service. And by pay, I mean one of: Kiss
ass, beg, appeal to pride, pay dollars, trade hardware, trade services,
etc...

Notice that I got NO takers on admining my Linux box in return for its use
and use of its connection. My signon message for that box is "why hack this
system when I would pay you to keep it secure? call xxx." No takers there
either. It's too much work. Linux has to grow out of the "I'm a guru and
your just a stupid user" thing if it is going to survive.

And it took all of 5 seconds to install the security patch from Microsoft to
fix this Alert.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ie/download/critical/Q290108/default.asp

---
James Newton (PICList Admin #3)
jamesnewtonEraseMEspam.....piclist.com 1-619-652-0593
PIC/PICList FAQ: http://www.piclist.com or .org

{Original Message removed}

2001\04\04@135133 by Timothy Stranex

flavicon
face
> "Security through obscurity" in the Open Source OS????
> Sounds very funny!!!
> BTW. I have some "multiboot" machines, where both Linux and Windows are
> used, and "crash rate" is much higher when running under Windows.
> Additionally the TCO is much lower in the case of Linux, because all
> important services and fundamental applications are included in the OS
> distribution.
> May be I'm a caveman, but if I can have my job done three times faster with
> my "outdated" tools (like LaTeX instead of Word), then I really prefere to use
> them.

Please don't tell me people actually use word...!!!??? <HORIFIED>

Timothy Stranex
EraseMEtimotspamuskonet.com
South Africa

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.


2001\04\04@135849 by Dale Botkin

flavicon
face
On Wed, 4 Apr 2001, Timothy Stranex wrote:

> > "Security through obscurity" in the Open Source OS????
> > Sounds very funny!!!
> > BTW. I have some "multiboot" machines, where both Linux and Windows are
> > used, and "crash rate" is much higher when running under Windows.
> > Additionally the TCO is much lower in the case of Linux, because all
> > important services and fundamental applications are included in the OS
> > distribution.
> > May be I'm a caveman, but if I can have my job done three times faster with
> > my "outdated" tools (like LaTeX instead of Word), then I really prefere to use
> > them.
>
> Please don't tell me people actually use word...!!!??? <HORIFIED>

Sure, all the time.  I have not seen anything on my UNIX machine yet that
does what Word will do.  Star Office is close, but way, way too slow to be
useful on the hardware I use for Linux.  Or on the NT box, for that
matter.  I have to admit, though, Word 2K is getting iritating.  I liked
Office 98 better than 2K.

Dale
---
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new
discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it!) but "That's funny ..."
               -- Isaac Asimov

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.


2001\04\04@142147 by Neil Bradley

flavicon
face
> He's nowhere near unique.  I have used Linux on production systems
> handling heavy loads -- it simply does not crash unless you've badly
> misconfigured something.

We had it running on two different MP boxen at work for serving files. It
would crash once a week at least, and in most cases would wind up losing a
volume or some cluster of files. Every time I'd ask (in Linux
newsgroups) whether or not they've seen something like this, it was always
"What patch level are you running?" And I thought Service Packs under NT
were bad!

This isn't an isolated incident. We load the CRAP out of our file servers
from multiple sites around the world.

> Of course you *can* hose pretty much any OS
> badly enough to make it unstable -- if you try hard enough.

Serving files over a 100Mb/sec network is enough to make Linux unstable?
We switched that box to Win2K and surprisingly it's not only faster, it
stays running for months (not a crash yet - cross fingers). I've yet to
have a crash on it, and it's running on THE SAME box.

> Reliability
> and robustness of any OS is dependent to some degree on the competency of
> the administrator and operator.

Oh yeah, there's real rocket science to running Samba. Not! You cannot
call in to question someone's experience being the problem when the
problem is obviously something with Linux itself. Two completely different
OSes had no problems and actually wound up with a much lower CPU load. It
was all Linux could do to keep up with a full stream (load average of
about 1.4) while FreeBSD runs Samba on the same box at around 0.4. I can't
tell for certain with 2K, but it's around 40% CPU load across both
processors.

We ran FreeBSD for a while and it served us very well (far better than
Linux had at that point) and switched to 2K because of the domain
authentication that the company enforced.

> > Feel free to talk about Windows fundamental design errors, but Linux is
> > OOOZING with them judging by the number of security problems found. 1/5th
> > the "market" of Windows and has 3X the reported security holes.
> 'Scuse me?  Where on Earth did *those* figures come from?  Never mind, I'm
> sure there are sources to back up pretty much any conceivable opinion.

Well, I gave NT too much credit, but my original points remain:

http://www.securityfocus.com/frames/?content=/templates/forum_message.html%3fforum=2%26head=2782%26id=2782

I would expect an OS with nowhere near the marketshare to have
considerably less security incidents. Linux is still out ahead of everyone
else, and they're already well in the lead for 2001 so far. And this
doesn't even touch

Regardless, it does point to Linux having quite a few kernel
problems. Just because you've never had any trouble with it doesn't mean
it's trouble free, and just because I've seen problems with it under loads
doesn't mean it's bug ridden. But it does point out fact that it has quite
a ways to go for me to ever consider trusting it again when there are
alternatives out there that are far more stable and efficient.

-->Neil

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Neil Bradley            There'd be no more N'Sync if everyone had guns.
Synthcom Systems, Inc.
ICQ #29402898

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.


2001\04\04@222135 by Alejandro Lavarello

picon face
Try OPERA!
  http://www.opera.com

In two flavours: with Java and without.

Regards!!
          Alejandro.

At 09:15 04/04/01 +0200, you wrote:
{Quote hidden}

earlier,
>> > > >        except IE 5.01 SP2
>> > > >      * Any software which utilizes vulnerable versions of Internet
>> > > >        Explorer to render HTML
>> >
>> > Solution: Use Netscape
>>
>>         A good idea, if Netscape ever ran for me without crashing.
Netscape is the
>> ONLY app I use in Linux that ALWAYS crashes, in an hour it crashes at least
>> 3 or 4 times. The windows version is better, but not by much. People have
>> told me the reason Netscape crashes is because it has problems with Java
and
{Quote hidden}

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.


2001\04\05@144942 by Peter L. Peres

picon face
>Solution: Use Netscape
>
>                Damon Hopkins

Or something else...

Peter

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email RemoveMElistservEraseMEspamEraseMEmitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body


More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2001 , 2002 only
- Today
- New search...