Slashdot Mirror

Of course, the biggest problem is that sometimes you are going to want to run as root, and you are probably going to want to install something while su'd to root. (It is wishful thinking to expect this not to happen. Someday there is going to be a really cool game for download in binary form that has a pop-up Window which says "enter root password" which may then turn out to be a trojan.)

My experience with virus checkers is that they don't work. I had a trojan eat an old Win95 machine of mine once, and the fact that it was running Norton's Anti-virus didn't help. However, Linux has more built in security against malicious actions than Win* systems, so I'm not expecting to see "a plague of Linux viruses."

Of course, the biggest problem is that sometimes you are going to want to run as root, and you are probably going to want to install something while su'd to root. (It is wishful thinking to expect this not to happen. Someday there is going to be a really cool game for download in binary form that has a pop-up Window which says "enter root password" which may then turn out to be a trojan.)

My experience with virus checkers is that they don't work. I had a trojan eat an old Win95 machine of mine once, and the fact that it was running Norton's Anti-virus didn't help. However, Linux has more built in security against malicious actions than Win* systems, so I'm not expecting to see "a plague of Linux viruses."

Guys, there has been Unix virusses for a long time, the one that you need to worry about still doesn't exist.
Anybody remember blimp ? The Virus MIT developed to test Unix vulnerabillity ? That managed to infect and destroy files only in the directory of the user who ran it ? Keep in mind that Unix has decent file premision settings, a program is only as the user who runs it. Sure you could build code into a virus to make it hack for root, but a virus needs to be small, and that is by nature big code. The only major risk we face is that a lot of newer users still do everything as root.
The root users path should include exactly one directory:
/sbin Nothing else, no porgrams not installed there should ever be run by root. If you run other stuff as root, virusses are the least of your worries, your gonna rm something important at some point.
For a lot of good information on Linux and virusses check out Rick Moens opinion page at LinuxMafia.com I based most of this post on what I learned there.

It's not a revolt if all people are doing is complaining. To the contrary: People tend to complain instead of taking corrective action, as many classic studies have amply demonstrated.

Dear MCSEs who are following this story: Watch closely, and you'll notice that you're being given the opportunity to vent your frustration, to give "input", to register your protest voice. That is how the game is played: You're presented with a fait accompli, and then given an opportunity to make futile, powerless gestures all about how annoyed you are.

This is one of life's intelligence tests. The way you pass is by declining the opportunity to protest, and instead act to fix the underlying situation. Or, be honest with yourself and admit that you're going to cave in. But don't waste your time protesting.

Consider how you came to be in this bind, and you'll see you've slowly moved into a certification relationship that's not working. Your best move is to say "No thanks": The only way to win this game is not to play.

When Redmond is done saying it's considered "your thoughts and concerns", has finished "helping you understand", and has ceased portraying your anger as "confusion", just ponder whether you will ever want to be in a position to be conned by these people again. There are healthy business relationships to be found, and good people to work with. Your first step towards finding them will be to say "Thanks, I'll get back to you", and start looking elsewhere.

Either that, or admit that you're dependent on Microsoft, and, as a business decision, will do what you're told. That's your decision to make -- but there's no need to kid yourself about the supposed value of protest, on your way to that course of action.

Why does this merger scare me?

I can't see what possible good will come out of this. IMO, it's a recipe for disaster and will provide the Clinton administration (or the Gore administration, if he turns out to be Clinton's successor) with just the tool he needs to further his agenda.

Personally, I like the ideas being floated elsewhere in this discussion about the USPS being an issuer of certificates or issuing numbers (for a fee) for "anonymized" postal addresses. Even better would be an international consortium (of which the USPS would be a part) that provides identity verification.

In the words of Rick Moen of Silicon Valley, "But that's just my opinion. I could be wrong."

--

Why does this merger scare me?

I can't see what possible good will come out of this. IMO, it's a recipe for disaster and will provide the Clinton administration (or the Gore administration, if he turns out to be Clinton's successor) with just the tool he needs to further his agenda.

Personally, I like the ideas being floated elsewhere in this discussion about the USPS being an issuer of certificates or issuing numbers (for a fee) for "anonymized" postal addresses. Even better would be an international consortium (of which the USPS would be a part) that provides identity verification.

In the words of Rick Moen of Silicon Valley, "But that's just my opinion. I could be wrong."

--

So I guess apologies are in order. In all seriousness, this was more of a case, I think, of me shooting my mouth off electronically. I was merely trying to be helpful, and I didn't stop to think of all ramifications. Thank you for making me stop and think about this sort of thing a little more. Complicated world we live in, no?

So I guess apologies are in order. In all seriousness, this was more of a case, I think, of me shooting my mouth off electronically. I was merely trying to be helpful, and I didn't stop to think of all ramifications. Thank you for making me stop and think about this sort of thing a little more. Complicated world we live in, no?

Sure I remember it. I even tried to download it (whilst in WinD'ohs) from Rick Moen's site. WinD'ohs kept insisting the file was html formatted

Hmm. If your browser chokes on http://linuxmafia.com/pub/linux/ apps/netshow_linux, then try ftp://linuxmafia.com/pub/linux/ap ps/netshow_linux.

Sure I remember it. I even tried to download it (whilst in WinD'ohs) from Rick Moen's site. WinD'ohs kept insisting the file was html formatted

Hmm. If your browser chokes on http://linuxmafia.com/pub/linux/ apps/netshow_linux, then try ftp://linuxmafia.com/pub/linux/ap ps/netshow_linux.

You're referring to Microsoft's NetShow Revision 2.00, Build 251 beta (aka Media Player), the very first Microsoft application for Linux, released in Oct. 1998. This is a stripped, statically linked x86 ELF binary. 2MB. http://linuxmafia.com/pub/linux/ apps/netshow_linux

The above is now the main distribution point for that software, since Microsoft removed it and all mention of it from its Web pages. It's not half bad, though I'm keeping it available mostly for historical reasons.

Indeed an amusing article (the ZDNet one). However, a couple of weeks ago, I happen to have written a piece that I think does comprehensively cover the question: http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/faq/#virus

I wrote that after I was ask about Linux virus-checkers once too often.

talk about coming off looking like an arrogant jackass.

See: http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/faq/#opini onated.

It's my opinion that, for any commercial domain, you need to have secondary DNS (and preferably backup MX) at at least one remote site, which ought to be on a different power grid. For that matter, not all NIC contacts should be the same person, and preferably at least one of them should not go through the domain in question (for out-of-band communication). It's not enough to have valid telephone numbers listed: E-mail accounts that become unreachable if the DNS goes down, are close to useless in NIC records.

So, don't do that, then.

Now, those of you who consider such measures excessive for a commercial site that purports to do e-commerce as LinxOne does, hey -- you do it your way, I'll do it mine, and we'll see who gets better results.

One assumes the point of this hinges on the upcoming MS Windows version -- i.e., using a graphical partitioner for an initial Linux installation actually makes a great deal of sense.

However, I've always maintained that dual-booting is usually a mistake, and that people seek out "non-destructive" resizers because of an underlying lack of control of their systems that they'd be better off curing, instead. See: http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/faq/#partiti on

Pournelle indeed does have a point, and that is why, in the Bay Area effort, we will verify in advance that all participants are absolutely legitimate. Other organised refund efforts have been, and are, strongly encouraged to do likewise.

If anyone has a copy of the original Web page and related .gifs (e.g., in a cache), please e-mail the set to me (or ftp into my /incoming directory), so I can mirror it on http://linuxmafia.com/. The pictures and description are just too priceless to vanish from public view. Thanks.

A new page at http://linuxmafia.com/refund/ has been established to coordinate Refund Day for the San Francisco Bay Area, provide information for the expected press coverage, etc. The goal is to have an organised, efficient, and friendly refund visit to Microsoft's business office in Foster City.

By the way, whoever set up the "thenoodle.com" site is really on the ball. He linked to the linuxmafia.com page even before I asked, or even told him it existed.