From: Peter Köhlmann on 27 Mar 2010 05:17
> "Peter K�hlmann" <peter-koehlmann(a)t-online.de> wrote in message
>> ToolPackinMama wrote:
>>> On 3/26/2010 3:43 AM, Peter K�hlmann wrote:
>>>> FromTheRafters wrote:
>>>>> Just read the intro - the rest is considerably beyond you.
>>>> Well, you have understood obviously *nothing* of it
>>> LOL! I love this quote:
>>> << We don't want to leave the impression that only the weak and
>>> unprotected users of personal computers have been attacked in this
>>> fashion. In fact, there is no question that several large computer
>>> companies have been successfully attacked, and that viruses have been
>>> spread throughout their timesharing systems, even where the most
>>> stringent protection is provided. >>
>> This proves exactly *what* of "FromTheRafters" idiotic claims?
>> In fact, it is a quite damning assessment of windows "capabilities" to
>> infected, even when the best "protection" is used
> The statements weren't platform specific. Most of the tests were
> probably on Unix systems
>> Come on, "FromTheRafters", tell us in detail how malware...
> *Now* you say malware. Losing focus again? I'm in the *virus* group and
> talking about *viruses*.
Malware encompasses viruses, too
ANd your complete failure to answer *any* question with anything more than
idiotic bullshit noted
>> ...enters a linux system, how it starts executing
Your abject failure to answer any of that is noted
>> and how it attaches
>> itself to some vector to stay on the system *and* keep executing
> Attaches itself to some vector??
Right. How do you propose the malware (virus, worm, whatever) survives the
It *has* to attach itself to some vector (A file, install itself in the
filesystem, whatever) to be present then
> Here's another thought. Don't be as concerned about spreading a virus as
> you are about executing a virus. If you don't execute one, your chances
> of spreading it are extremely low - so avoiding them kills two birds
> with one stone.
Translation: You know *nothing* at all about the subject
All you are able to do is spouting some inane nonsense
Another name for a Windows tutorial is crash course
From: Lusotec on 27 Mar 2010 06:28
> Some distros even had the console mode in a distinct color so that a
> user wouldn't forget he or she was logged as root.
For example, on Mandriva, when logging in to a X session as root the
background defaults to bright red. It makes it hard to even look at the
From: bbgruff on 27 Mar 2010 14:11
On Friday 26 March 2010 17:47 ToolPackinMama wrote:
> Well, I play a couple of games, and getting my games to run in Linux
> would be a nightmare for me.
> Gaming is 90% of what I do with my computer.
I'm sorry that you guys outside of linux.advocacy are being pestered by
posts which should really be confined there, but while I have your
attention, may I ask "WHY"?
Gaming is one "anti-linux" area that is frequently cited.
Would you mind just going into WHY you use a P.C. for 90% of the time to
play games? It's always seemed to me that the "latest and greatest,
fastest" games are what drives the purchase of high-end P.C.s, and I don't
understand why this is so. Would it not be more logical/cheaper to buy a
games console for games, and a (much!) cheaper P.C. for "serious work"?
I.O.W. why do you (seemingly) feel that a P.C. is better for games than a
From: FromTheRafters on 27 Mar 2010 19:21
"Peter K�hlmann" <peter-koehlmann(a)t-online.de> wrote in message
> FromTheRafters wrote:
>>> This proves exactly *what* of "FromTheRafters"
>>> idiotic claims? In fact, it is a quite damning
>>> assessment of windows "capabilities" to get
>>> infected, even when the best "protection" is used
>> The statements weren't platform specific. Most of the tests were
>> probably on Unix systems
Windows wasn't even mentioned, although Unix was (among others).
>>> Come on, "FromTheRafters", tell us in detail how malware...
>> *Now* you say malware. Losing focus again? I'm in the *virus* group
>> talking about *viruses*.
> Malware encompasses viruses, too
When you say *viruses*, you should be talking about viruses. Saying that
they require an insecure environment in order to exist is
> ANd your complete failure to answer *any* question with anything more
> idiotic bullshit noted
It should also be noted that I provided information (and an
authoritative link), and you did nothing but disagree and call me names.
>>> ...enters a linux system, how it starts executing
> Your abject failure to answer any of that is noted
I did, I told you that they start executing when their host program is
invoked. Much like a trojan executes when you invoke *it*.
>>> and how it attaches
>>> itself to some vector to stay on the system *and* keep executing
>> Attaches itself to some vector??
> Right. How do you propose the malware (virus, worm, whatever) survives
> next boot?
Ahhh - a multiple choice question.
I choose to address the *virus*, since that is the one kind of malware
that proves your view wrong.
A virus can be at rest. Most other malware wants to remain active (and
wants its start method to survive a reboot) so it can steal your
computing power and use it for the perpetrators own tasks. A virus can
exist quite happily without being resident all of the time. It runs when
> It *has* to attach itself to some vector (A file, install itself in
> filesystem, whatever) to be present then
Yes. It may modify a program (or the environment) so that a program (or
programs) *hosts* the virus. The program (now considered a virus itself,
as it is "infected" now) can be stored as a file on the filesystem.
>> Here's another thought. Don't be as concerned about spreading a virus
>> you are about executing a virus. If you don't execute one, your
>> of spreading it are extremely low - so avoiding them kills two birds
>> with one stone.
> Translation: You know *nothing* at all about the subject
> All you are able to do is spouting some inane nonsense
Well, I guess we're done here...I can only hope somebody *else* has
learned something from my posts.
From: bbgruff on 27 Mar 2010 19:29
On Friday 26 March 2010 08:06 ToolPackinMama wrote:
> On 3/26/2010 3:37 AM, RonB wrote:
>> On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 02:27:42 -0400, ToolPackinMama wrote:
>>> Yes, worked beautifully. I didn't have to install anything to get
>>> online. I did DL the available updates, soon after.
>> Wubi is a great way to try and learn Linux. I don't know if it's the best
>> way to use Linux long-term or not as, I think, there's a bit of a
>> drop-off in performance. You may want to make some free space on your
>> hard drive and just do a normal Ubuntu install somewhere down the line.
> Oh sure, and I probably will, now! I was just marveling about how easy
> it is to actually get started, if somebody is brand new to it.
Great if it (Wubi) gives you some confidence :-)
As I was saying to another poster here though, if you want to use Linux
seriously but still need Windows for some apps, I reckon now that far the
best way to go is a clean Linux install, then VirtualBox or VMware, and in
that create a Virtual Windows machine.
Depends if you have a "full retail" of Windows of course, and I suspect not
good for fast games, but that apart you get a good solid secure OS as your
main OS, used for all browsing, e-mail etc., and Windows is there for
Windows apps, and need never be used on the Internet.