I understand where you are going, but most always-on internet connections are firewalled at this point (even on Windows machines) due to the awareness levels of users being higher than they were a few years ago. (Most ISP's are also pushing the concept, which is helping the users and them contain problems). Zonealarm and Norton Internet Security are common apps these days and they do ask permission for each port going outbound, and both of those products are easier to use than Linux equivalents; largely consisting of clicking "Yes" and "No" when programs want to communicate to the net.
Linux nor Windows are "Secure by Default" you have to know what you are doing with Linux and with Windows you have to at least know to install something like Zonealarm. We aren't likely to see anything like "Trusted Solaris" coming out of the Linux camp for awhile and until the tools come out to make Linux firewall as easy as Zonealarm it's more error prone and less secure. Hard to use is usually about as good as having nothing at all -- the average joe admin needs ease of use for time management and consistency. Many of the enterprise-type Windows firewall packages can be centrally managed which is a whole lot better than rolling config files for everyone or trusting people to come up with their own.
I like Linux, but I will admit that you must be a Linux specialist to adequately secure it. A Windows user/server admin could install free zonealarm and be done with the issue completely after simply running the programs needing network access once. (my last install of Zonealarm took ohh, 5mins and no manual reading). The linux experience is completely different; you HAVE to either run some firewall configuration gui -- assuming you know what you are doing OR have enough knowledge of the proper/etc files to do the task. You would also have to know all the port numbers/services involved, a problem you do not have on Windows firewalling (it can figure out ports based on the applications using them, so it simply asks if you want the program to access the network). This makes security difficult and only available for those "in the know" for Linux.
IIS is another issue, as normal users wouldn't be running it. IIS is secure, if you're up on the patches or have an automatic patch solution. If you do not "patch up" with any web server you are vulnerable, simply put. A good IDS should always be in front of web servers, and set to trigger automatic blocking of ips that submit malformed or known exploit URL's. That eliminates the problems completely generally. If you aren't going to bother with all that, don't run the web server have it hosted. Nothing will save you if you're not using common sense. Firewall it, IDS it, Zonealarm it, Virus scan it, keep good backups, and read your logs. Most of the script kiddy exploits are known to IDS' and/or patched out quickly. Your mileage with server products is always determined by your protection screen. No machine or system is absolutely safe there is always an exploit in every product you use, but a good protection screen allows for failure in one component without compromising the screen -- thus, reducing the risks.
Linux systems are just as vulnerable to the spring-board attacks you described. Any compromise has a chance to become exponential, but in the Linux case the exploits are likely unique to certain packages which probably means that the exploit works on many different types of UNIX machines as thus may even be a bigger problem. SSH has broke, apache has, and we all know the mail packages have. Your defense in these times is the same as "the windows guy", get out your logs and see if you are rooted.
I've only had one Windows box rooted in all of my time working with them (which is about ten years now) and that was due to a trojaned software not a remote exploit. In all that time since I've been doing web servers, mail servers, and nearly everything else in windows without a problem even ONCE. Security is my religion and that may be helping, but it's easy to do so why wouldn't you? Just because you're using a "minority" os doesn't make you safer, it makes you less aware of the potential exploits because less people are prodding at them.
Re:Remotely vs. locally exploitable
on
Security FUD On Linux
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
What is linux?
It's a kernel.. that's it..
At the "kernel level" neither Windows or Linux have very many problems.
Windows in its entirety is much more than a kernel. It's not even a fair comparison.
If you're comparing distros, well then.. You are much more likely to be exposed if you are running Red Hat/Debian/Whatever than simply running Windows due to the number of additional silent-ware installed that you probably do not know about. The only way you may be safer is running a stripped down or completely-customizable distro like Gentoo and for most WORKING people building kernels and packages all day is not practical at all.
Another fact that Linux geeks don't get. For every 1 person using linux, there are probably countless others running Windows. Bug frequency appears higher in number, but is lower as a ratio to the users. If there is one Linux user to every 100 Windows users and there are 10 Linux exploits a year vs. 20 for Windows then Linux would have much more vulnerability.
Let's assume that there are 1 million magic users in our comparison, that would mean that there are 10000 Linux users with 10 bugs one system exploit per 1000 users that leads to system comprimise.
Our Windows users are actually doing better because they're getting one exploit per 49500 users. Infact, the Windows people would have to get more than 400 bugs a year to even be competing with Linux on bugs. In our little example the numbers are fake, but it's not really that far-fetched if you put real user base numbers in the equation.
Real security is all about knowing this crap, even though the numbers are bullshit I'm mainly trying to prove the point that the bugs to user ratio is much more important. The chance of being exploited, the number of exploits, and the number of software packages are all factors. Just because Linux gets 10 bugs and Microsoft gets 40 doesn't mean "Linux Wins".. The Linux user base is much lower so the bug rate is exponentially higher than Windows.
There's is nothing wrong with giving 'em one on the chin when it is the right thing to do. It sends a message,"We're not going to just swallow every boat load of crap you're shoveling."
Part of standing on the higher ground is being in a position of integrity. Allowing organizations to bully you down undermines your position and in effect empowers them. Is that what you are ask us to do? How can open software be superior if our backbone weakens every time company XYZ launches a jihad?
If you're serious about sending SCO the message it's really simple. Don't buy their products, and don't make products for their platform. Cast your vote, or let them trample you. Companies don't care whether they use SCO or Linux, only that their applications work on the platform. The only vote you got is that of the code. If SCO has no applications there is no reason to use SCO. This is even the case where a company likes SCO -- if they have to spend time porting/developing to use SCO then they're likely to use something else.
Understand most of all what they're trying to do: Kill free software, or make it extremely costly to use. They aren't pulling the punches with us, why should we take the beating without getting our lick in? Reacting any other way is foolish, and just opens up the room for more of the same trouble from other avenues. If there are consequences to treating the open software community in this way it would make other people think twice about doing the same.. wouldn't it?
I'm not saying we should all go to their office with torches either. I'm simply saying that we should retaliate in the most civil of ways; drop support for them, and quit developing for them. They'll get the clue.
It's fine if you like those sort of things, frankly I probably poured as much time into Zelda as anyone else. Donkey Kong, Super Mario (almost all incarnations) are my old school favorites. But, they aren't making games that are fun anymore. They're "cute" not fun. Past performance/quality has nothing to do with now. Name a game that you "just gotta" go out and buy a Game Cube for. There isn't one. Simple. Similar or better quality gaming can be had on almost any other platform and there is also content for the people that do like the ultra-violent type games and considering that a console is likely a family purchase it would make more sense to get the Playstation 2 or XBox in lieu of the Cube for the fact that the content is varied. I can get spyro the dragon for my little boy and something a little more in depth for me.
I'm far from favoring any platform as I have owned most of the machines I have mentioned in that previous post. Nintendo just isn't what they once were to me. I can play old super mario bros all day and enjoy it even now. Super Mario Kart? You're kidding right? These types of games have a place -- when you're six to ten years old.. they aren't like super mario bros which was entertaining enough that even my father would play it with me on two player.
I'm worried that more and more we're going to get a lot less choices as far as the quality of the gaming consoles of the future, and seeing the 100-ton gorilla that is Nintendo going downhill really doesn't do much for the future outlook.
Nintendo has been screwing the pooch for awhile with their game marketing. Let's face it, no one is spending $200+ for their eight years or younger to play video games when they're just as happy with a Sega Genesis/Nomad or the SNES. This is the market that the cube has been cavorting with since it's release. (and this is the impression they want you to have, based on the fact that the included games would be super mario kart.. etc..)
They would do well to learn from history just one time. Atari 2600's sucked compared to the other consoles released in the early-eighties (Colecovision was probably my favorite at the time), but the games catered to everyone. Think of a topic or something you would like to do and most likely there was an Atari 2600 game for it. Even my mother-in-law was highly addicted to Kaboom -- that speaks greatly of the breadth of experience to be had with one little black box. Whether it be the Atari vs. Coleco, NES vs. Sega Master System (nice machine, no friggin games), SNES vs. Genesis, or Playstation vs. Saturn the thing to know is better hardware doesn't mean jack. It's all about the content, people can make due with an adequate interface.
If Nintendo doesn't want to make consoles anymore we'll be fine, because they currently are sucking at it completely. We are losing nothing -- their games suck.. AND.. if they think they can make money by just doing the games, well think again! The reason Nintendo is sucking isn't because the Game Cube isn't a nice box, it's that the GAMES suck. Why exactly would we buy their games any more than we do now if they came out on a Playstation 2 or XBox? Sega has already tried this move, and it's not working for them.
While it really isn't likely that Gentoo is more than 10% faster than other systems in any given operation there are reasons I don't feel these numbers reflect anything.
First, the tests fail to mention kernel versions they're running or the filesystem of the machines (which has a big impact on processing efficiency, different fs being better or worse at different things) and they didn't even mention what version of X11 or gnome they're even running on these boxes. Are we testing Gentoo? Gentoo is portage, gentoo-sources (and the other modified kernels), ebuilds, prelink, evms, XFS, and a host of other features the others simply don't have.
Second, no comparisions are made on i/o bound tasks (reading/writing/copying files). Things that do not stretch resources in linux may simply be preempted out of importance. (Linux puts higher priority on a soon-to-be-overstuffed disk buffer than the display/computation of a spreadsheets). It would be hard for ANY of these distros to even compete on i/o bound tasks mostly because of Gentoo's EVMS or XFS options. EVMS is simply the best Software RAID I have ever used. XFS seems to be one of the filesystems of the future as well due to it's i/o guarantees, journalling, and sickly-disgustingly-large filesizes.(I feel the jobs XFS will do simply cannot be done by anything else at this point).
Thirdly, another advantage is simply not having 3-4 disks worth of iso install that you will NEVER need. Mandrake and Redhat (though not tested here) are completely bloatware. They don't install what you need and work properly, they install EVERYTHING or work poorly (because the distro makers hide some silly dependencies). Gentoo's "emerge -p packagename" is a whole hell of a lot friendlier. But, if you don't use the deep options it's possible to lose a lot of the "roll your own" advantages. Gentoo is subject to a high degree of user stupidity, it is possible to negate all of the advantages of source-based distro simply by being careless.
Lastly, Gentoo's major advantage -- it's best.. the Gentoo users! That's right. Gentoo's forums are so good (and full of know-how types) that put virtually any goofy problem you can think of is within searching distance. I simply have found Gentoo's support forums probably the best repository of linux information on the net. I don't say that lightly either. Something to be said about being able to get problems resolved quickly and correctly -- and having it at your fingertips. I like to go to one place for answers, and likely you do to.
As you can see, it's very hard to get a good feel for what Gentoo is by reading that review. I would encourage any techie freak to take her for a test drive. It's not for everyone and not even for most, but it's still a very different experience in comparison to other linux distributions. (I have used Redhat, Mandrake, and switched to Gentoo -- I have not had any need or thought of moving to something else; my own 2 cents).
Back in 1998, I was in the midst of creating my consulting business and was introduced to SCO via a business support group that I had become a member of to gain industry contacts. I spoke with a SCO representative and was told that I could could become a SCO reseller/authorized support center. I figured this could be a good opportunity (SCO was one of a few UNIX vendors that I was looking to work with) and maybe could get some cool enterpise software in the process.
Anyhow, my wonderful SCO pack arrives with nearly every piece of software they were pushing at the time (it really was about about 30 cds!) and I get out the latest copy of SCO Openserver and get ready to install it on my dual pII box with the very common LX chipset. I put the cd in, begin the installation... FREEZE...
I reboot.. put the CD in.. FREEZE
I reboot.. put the CD in... FREEZE
I hit all the documentation shipped in the box, and everything on the web.. Nothing.. Nothing.. I would have to get SCO support to get the damn thing to load.
SCO succeeded in proving one thing to me, supporting their "product" would be a living nightmare!
It amazes me how long it takes such an antiquated pile of junk to finally make it to the trash heap..
-Mind
Here's something right off the web site:
Quotations from Linux Leaders
SCOsource
Bruce Perens
"This is becoming a tradition. I go there and break the law every year in the name of free speech."
Bruce Perens, explaining his plan to demonstrate how to modify DVD technology to attendees of an Open Source convention.
"We have to remember that Linux is a follow-on to UNIX. It's not just a UNIX clone. It's actually a UNIX successor."
Bruce Perens, mpulse magazine, December 2001.
What it has to do with linux is beyond me:)
- Mind
I'd just like to say, this is a damn good scam.:)
(still laughing)
Or better yet, add some bonus porn channels for the card buying geeks out there for incentive.
Re:Neither as good as Thinking in Java
on
Head First Java
·
· Score: 1
Depends on your perspective.. I find the "Thinking" books an annoying read mostly because a lot of what is common sense kind of stuff is methodically plodded through and explained (when it doesn't need to be). If you weren't a programmer at all (not even BASIC) then maybe you would enjoy this book because it would all be fresh. For me, it was mind-numbing and very hard to get throught the first half of it (in an attempt to give it a fair try).
If you've ever done any kind of programming don't even bother with this, it will insult your intelligence and patience. If you're the type that learns by form and function this one is rather a bore.
Slashdot Mirror
I understand where you are going, but most always-on internet connections are firewalled at this point (even on Windows machines) due to the awareness levels of users being higher than they were a few years ago. (Most ISP's are also pushing the concept, which is helping the users and them contain problems). Zonealarm and Norton Internet Security are common apps these days and they do ask permission for each port going outbound, and both of those products are easier to use than Linux equivalents; largely consisting of clicking "Yes" and "No" when programs want to communicate to the net.
Linux nor Windows are "Secure by Default" you have to know what you are doing with Linux and with Windows you have to at least know to install something like Zonealarm. We aren't likely to see anything like "Trusted Solaris" coming out of the Linux camp for awhile and until the tools come out to make Linux firewall as easy as Zonealarm it's more error prone and less secure. Hard to use is usually about as good as having nothing at all -- the average joe admin needs ease of use for time management and consistency. Many of the enterprise-type Windows firewall packages can be centrally managed which is a whole lot better than rolling config files for everyone or trusting people to come up with their own.
I like Linux, but I will admit that you must be a Linux specialist to adequately secure it. A Windows user/server admin could install free zonealarm and be done with the issue completely after simply running the programs needing network access once. (my last install of Zonealarm took ohh, 5mins and no manual reading). The linux experience is completely different; you HAVE to either run some firewall configuration gui -- assuming you know what you are doing OR have enough knowledge of the proper /etc files to do the task. You would also have to know all the port numbers/services involved, a problem you do not have on Windows firewalling (it can figure out ports based on the applications using them, so it simply asks if you want the program to access the network). This makes security difficult and only available for those "in the know" for Linux.
IIS is another issue, as normal users wouldn't be running it. IIS is secure, if you're up on the patches or have an automatic patch solution. If you do not "patch up" with any web server you are vulnerable, simply put. A good IDS should always be in front of web servers, and set to trigger automatic blocking of ips that submit malformed or known exploit URL's. That eliminates the problems completely generally. If you aren't going to bother with all that, don't run the web server have it hosted. Nothing will save you if you're not using common sense. Firewall it, IDS it, Zonealarm it, Virus scan it, keep good backups, and read your logs. Most of the script kiddy exploits are known to IDS' and/or patched out quickly. Your mileage with server products is always determined by your protection screen. No machine or system is absolutely safe there is always an exploit in every product you use, but a good protection screen allows for failure in one component without compromising the screen -- thus, reducing the risks.
Linux systems are just as vulnerable to the spring-board attacks you described. Any compromise has a chance to become exponential, but in the Linux case the exploits are likely unique to certain packages which probably means that the exploit works on many different types of UNIX machines as thus may even be a bigger problem. SSH has broke, apache has, and we all know the mail packages have. Your defense in these times is the same as "the windows guy", get out your logs and see if you are rooted.
I've only had one Windows box rooted in all of my time working with them (which is about ten years now) and that was due to a trojaned software not a remote exploit. In all that time since I've been doing web servers, mail servers, and nearly everything else in windows without a problem even ONCE. Security is my religion and that may be helping, but it's easy to do so why wouldn't you? Just because you're using a "minority" os doesn't make you safer, it makes you less aware of the potential exploits because less people are prodding at them.
It's a kernel.. that's it..
At the "kernel level" neither Windows or Linux have very many problems.
Windows in its entirety is much more than a kernel. It's not even a fair comparison.
If you're comparing distros, well then.. You are much more likely to be exposed if you are running Red Hat/Debian/Whatever than simply running Windows due to the number of additional silent-ware installed that you probably do not know about. The only way you may be safer is running a stripped down or completely-customizable distro like Gentoo and for most WORKING people building kernels and packages all day is not practical at all.
Another fact that Linux geeks don't get. For every 1 person using linux, there are probably countless others running Windows. Bug frequency appears higher in number, but is lower as a ratio to the users. If there is one Linux user to every 100 Windows users and there are 10 Linux exploits a year vs. 20 for Windows then Linux would have much more vulnerability.
Let's assume that there are 1 million magic users in our comparison, that would mean that there are 10000 Linux users with 10 bugs one system exploit per 1000 users that leads to system comprimise.
Our Windows users are actually doing better because they're getting one exploit per 49500 users. Infact, the Windows people would have to get more than 400 bugs a year to even be competing with Linux on bugs. In our little example the numbers are fake, but it's not really that far-fetched if you put real user base numbers in the equation.
Real security is all about knowing this crap, even though the numbers are bullshit I'm mainly trying to prove the point that the bugs to user ratio is much more important. The chance of being exploited, the number of exploits, and the number of software packages are all factors. Just because Linux gets 10 bugs and Microsoft gets 40 doesn't mean "Linux Wins".. The Linux user base is much lower so the bug rate is exponentially higher than Windows.
Just some food for thought..
There's is nothing wrong with giving 'em one on the chin when it is the right thing to do. It sends a message,"We're not going to just swallow every boat load of crap you're shoveling."
Part of standing on the higher ground is being in a position of integrity. Allowing organizations to bully you down undermines your position and in effect empowers them. Is that what you are ask us to do? How can open software be superior if our backbone weakens every time company XYZ launches a jihad?
If you're serious about sending SCO the message it's really simple. Don't buy their products, and don't make products for their platform. Cast your vote, or let them trample you. Companies don't care whether they use SCO or Linux, only that their applications work on the platform. The only vote you got is that of the code. If SCO has no applications there is no reason to use SCO. This is even the case where a company likes SCO -- if they have to spend time porting/developing to use SCO then they're likely to use something else.
Understand most of all what they're trying to do: Kill free software, or make it extremely costly to use. They aren't pulling the punches with us, why should we take the beating without getting our lick in? Reacting any other way is foolish, and just opens up the room for more of the same trouble from other avenues. If there are consequences to treating the open software community in this way it would make other people think twice about doing the same.. wouldn't it?
I'm not saying we should all go to their office with torches either. I'm simply saying that we should retaliate in the most civil of ways; drop support for them, and quit developing for them. They'll get the clue.
-Mind
I'm far from favoring any platform as I have owned most of the machines I have mentioned in that previous post. Nintendo just isn't what they once were to me. I can play old super mario bros all day and enjoy it even now. Super Mario Kart? You're kidding right? These types of games have a place -- when you're six to ten years old.. they aren't like super mario bros which was entertaining enough that even my father would play it with me on two player.
- Mind
I'm worried that more and more we're going to get a lot less choices as far as the quality of the gaming consoles of the future, and seeing the 100-ton gorilla that is Nintendo going downhill really doesn't do much for the future outlook.
Nintendo has been screwing the pooch for awhile with their game marketing. Let's face it, no one is spending $200+ for their eight years or younger to play video games when they're just as happy with a Sega Genesis/Nomad or the SNES. This is the market that the cube has been cavorting with since it's release. (and this is the impression they want you to have, based on the fact that the included games would be super mario kart.. etc..)
They would do well to learn from history just one time. Atari 2600's sucked compared to the other consoles released in the early-eighties (Colecovision was probably my favorite at the time), but the games catered to everyone. Think of a topic or something you would like to do and most likely there was an Atari 2600 game for it. Even my mother-in-law was highly addicted to Kaboom -- that speaks greatly of the breadth of experience to be had with one little black box. Whether it be the Atari vs. Coleco, NES vs. Sega Master System (nice machine, no friggin games), SNES vs. Genesis, or Playstation vs. Saturn the thing to know is better hardware doesn't mean jack. It's all about the content, people can make due with an adequate interface.
If Nintendo doesn't want to make consoles anymore we'll be fine, because they currently are sucking at it completely. We are losing nothing -- their games suck.. AND.. if they think they can make money by just doing the games, well think again! The reason Nintendo is sucking isn't because the Game Cube isn't a nice box, it's that the GAMES suck. Why exactly would we buy their games any more than we do now if they came out on a Playstation 2 or XBox? Sega has already tried this move, and it's not working for them.
- Mind
While it really isn't likely that Gentoo is more than 10% faster than other systems in any given operation there are reasons I don't feel these numbers reflect anything.
First, the tests fail to mention kernel versions they're running or the filesystem of the machines (which has a big impact on processing efficiency, different fs being better or worse at different things) and they didn't even mention what version of X11 or gnome they're even running on these boxes. Are we testing Gentoo? Gentoo is portage, gentoo-sources (and the other modified kernels), ebuilds, prelink, evms, XFS, and a host of other features the others simply don't have.
Second, no comparisions are made on i/o bound tasks (reading/writing/copying files). Things that do not stretch resources in linux may simply be preempted out of importance. (Linux puts higher priority on a soon-to-be-overstuffed disk buffer than the display/computation of a spreadsheets). It would be hard for ANY of these distros to even compete on i/o bound tasks mostly because of Gentoo's EVMS or XFS options. EVMS is simply the best Software RAID I have ever used. XFS seems to be one of the filesystems of the future as well due to it's i/o guarantees, journalling, and sickly-disgustingly-large filesizes.(I feel the jobs XFS will do simply cannot be done by anything else at this point).
Thirdly, another advantage is simply not having 3-4 disks worth of iso install that you will NEVER need. Mandrake and Redhat (though not tested here) are completely bloatware. They don't install what you need and work properly, they install EVERYTHING or work poorly (because the distro makers hide some silly dependencies). Gentoo's "emerge -p packagename" is a whole hell of a lot friendlier. But, if you don't use the deep options it's possible to lose a lot of the "roll your own" advantages. Gentoo is subject to a high degree of user stupidity, it is possible to negate all of the advantages of source-based distro simply by being careless.
Lastly, Gentoo's major advantage -- it's best.. the Gentoo users! That's right. Gentoo's forums are so good (and full of know-how types) that put virtually any goofy problem you can think of is within searching distance. I simply have found Gentoo's support forums probably the best repository of linux information on the net. I don't say that lightly either. Something to be said about being able to get problems resolved quickly and correctly -- and having it at your fingertips. I like to go to one place for answers, and likely you do to.
As you can see, it's very hard to get a good feel for what Gentoo is by reading that review. I would encourage any techie freak to take her for a test drive. It's not for everyone and not even for most, but it's still a very different experience in comparison to other linux distributions. (I have used Redhat, Mandrake, and switched to Gentoo -- I have not had any need or thought of moving to something else; my own 2 cents).
-Mind
Back in 1998, I was in the midst of creating my consulting business and was introduced to SCO via a business support group that I had become a member of to gain industry contacts. I spoke with a SCO representative and was told that I could could become a SCO reseller/authorized support center. I figured this could be a good opportunity (SCO was one of a few UNIX vendors that I was looking to work with) and maybe could get some cool enterpise software in the process. Anyhow, my wonderful SCO pack arrives with nearly every piece of software they were pushing at the time (it really was about about 30 cds!) and I get out the latest copy of SCO Openserver and get ready to install it on my dual pII box with the very common LX chipset. I put the cd in, begin the installation... FREEZE... I reboot.. put the CD in.. FREEZE I reboot.. put the CD in... FREEZE I hit all the documentation shipped in the box, and everything on the web.. Nothing.. Nothing.. I would have to get SCO support to get the damn thing to load. SCO succeeded in proving one thing to me, supporting their "product" would be a living nightmare! It amazes me how long it takes such an antiquated pile of junk to finally make it to the trash heap.. -Mind
Here's something right off the web site: Quotations from Linux Leaders SCOsource Bruce Perens "This is becoming a tradition. I go there and break the law every year in the name of free speech." Bruce Perens, explaining his plan to demonstrate how to modify DVD technology to attendees of an Open Source convention. "We have to remember that Linux is a follow-on to UNIX. It's not just a UNIX clone. It's actually a UNIX successor." Bruce Perens, mpulse magazine, December 2001. What it has to do with linux is beyond me :)
- Mind
I'd just like to say, this is a damn good scam. :)
(still laughing)
Or better yet, add some bonus porn channels for the card buying geeks out there for incentive.
Depends on your perspective.. I find the "Thinking" books an annoying read mostly because a lot of what is common sense kind of stuff is methodically plodded through and explained (when it doesn't need to be). If you weren't a programmer at all (not even BASIC) then maybe you would enjoy this book because it would all be fresh. For me, it was mind-numbing and very hard to get throught the first half of it (in an attempt to give it a fair try).
If you've ever done any kind of programming don't even bother with this, it will insult your intelligence and patience. If you're the type that learns by form and function this one is rather a bore.
-Mind