How can Microsoft be proud to market this drivel !

[Julian]

"Frank" <fb@nospamm.cmm> wrote in message
news:OmuDcukwHHA.3364@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Julian wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Frank" <fb@nospamm.cmm> wrote in message
>> news:eBHulZjwHHA.1184@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>
>>> Alias wrote:
>>>
>>>> Frank wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Alias wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Something written for Linux that carries an evil payload will not
>>>>>> make it into the repositories. Your premise that there are more
>>>>>> Windows boxes around is totally not relevant and rapidly reversing
>>>>>> itself.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You are nothing but a lying sack of sh*t!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's the truth. Live with it.
>>>>
>>>>> Could you possible make a bigger fool out of yourself or mislead
>>>>> others anymore than you already have?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Speak for yourself. Oh, wait, you *are*.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If someone
>>>>>
>>>>>> only installs using approved repositories, they have no reason to
>>>>>> fear malware with Linux.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Nor from Vista.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> False.
>>>>
>>>>> Jacka*s! At one point, the user(s) Vista or linux has to do something
>>>>> to allow unwanted access to their computer. Malware does not simply
>>>>> get into any computer all by itself.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Really? Read this and eat your words:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.computerworld.com/action...ArticleBasic&articleId=9026323&intsrc=hm_list
>>>> You might also want to educate yourself on wireless networks by reading
>>>> Stephen's post.
>>>>
>>>>> You're so full misleading lies as to be unbelievable!
>>>>> You think anyone in this ng any longer believes anything you say?
>>>>> Grow the fu*k up you stupid moron!
>>>>> BTW, that's and insult...lol!
>>>>> Frank
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I know that your "arguments" are mere insults. That's obvious.
>>>>
>>>> Alias
>>>
>>>
>>> Hey a*shole, we're not talking wireless.
>>> Read the post you stupid moron!
>>> Frank
>>
>>
>> Frank... you're dealing with someone who is mentally unstable
>> and prone to making threats of violence and attempts to get
>> those who disagree with him sacked from their work places.
>>
>>
>
> Oh...you mean he's a real moron who also just happens to be an idiot? You
> mean he's suffering from a Napoleonic complex and is really filled with
> fear cause he couldn't fight his way out of a paper bag?
> Is that what you mean?

There is that, but he is also liable to email someones employer and
tell grass them up. Of course missusing company facilities is not right
but what sort of creature would take it upon them selves to
risk putting the persons wife and children in the workhouse?

Alias, that's who.

Alias, admits to breaking laws himself (marijauana)
but woe betide anyone he finds transgressing.

 

[Frank]

Julian wrote:
>
>
> "Frank" <fb@nospamm.cmm> wrote in message
> news:OmuDcukwHHA.3364@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>
>> Julian wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Frank" <fb@nospamm.cmm> wrote in message
>>> news:eBHulZjwHHA.1184@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>>
>>>> Alias wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Frank wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Alias wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Something written for Linux that carries an evil payload will not
>>>>>>> make it into the repositories. Your premise that there are more
>>>>>>> Windows boxes around is totally not relevant and rapidly
>>>>>>> reversing itself.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are nothing but a lying sack of sh*t!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It's the truth. Live with it.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Could you possible make a bigger fool out of yourself or mislead
>>>>>> others anymore than you already have?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Speak for yourself. Oh, wait, you *are*.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If someone
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> only installs using approved repositories, they have no reason to
>>>>>>> fear malware with Linux.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nor from Vista.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> False.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Jacka*s! At one point, the user(s) Vista or linux has to do
>>>>>> something to allow unwanted access to their computer. Malware does
>>>>>> not simply get into any computer all by itself.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Really? Read this and eat your words:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.computerworld.com/action...ArticleBasic&articleId=9026323&intsrc=hm_list
>>>>> You might also want to educate yourself on wireless networks by
>>>>> reading Stephen's post.
>>>>>
>>>>>> You're so full misleading lies as to be unbelievable!
>>>>>> You think anyone in this ng any longer believes anything you say?
>>>>>> Grow the fu*k up you stupid moron!
>>>>>> BTW, that's and insult...lol!
>>>>>> Frank
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I know that your "arguments" are mere insults. That's obvious.
>>>>>
>>>>> Alias
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hey a*shole, we're not talking wireless.
>>>> Read the post you stupid moron!
>>>> Frank
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Frank... you're dealing with someone who is mentally unstable
>>> and prone to making threats of violence and attempts to get
>>> those who disagree with him sacked from their work places.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Oh...you mean he's a real moron who also just happens to be an idiot?
>> You mean he's suffering from a Napoleonic complex and is really filled
>> with fear cause he couldn't fight his way out of a paper bag?
>> Is that what you mean?
>
>
> There is that, but he is also liable to email someones employer and
> tell grass them up. Of course missusing company facilities is not right
> but what sort of creature would take it upon them selves to
> risk putting the persons wife and children in the workhouse?
>
> Alias, that's who.
>
> Alias, admits to breaking laws himself (marijauana)
> but woe betide anyone he finds transgressing.
>
>
>
>
Well, I truly believe he is a fugitive of justice from the USA hiding in
spain.
He proly has wants & warrants out for his arrests.
He proly skipped bail.
He deserves to be brought to justice.
Frank

 

[Alias]

Frank wrote:
> Julian wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Frank" <fb@nospamm.cmm> wrote in message
>> news:OmuDcukwHHA.3364@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>
>>> Julian wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Frank" <fb@nospamm.cmm> wrote in message
>>>> news:eBHulZjwHHA.1184@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>>>
>>>>> Alias wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Frank wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Alias wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Something written for Linux that carries an evil payload will
>>>>>>>> not make it into the repositories. Your premise that there are
>>>>>>>> more Windows boxes around is totally not relevant and rapidly
>>>>>>>> reversing itself.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You are nothing but a lying sack of sh*t!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's the truth. Live with it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Could you possible make a bigger fool out of yourself or mislead
>>>>>>> others anymore than you already have?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Speak for yourself. Oh, wait, you *are*.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If someone
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> only installs using approved repositories, they have no reason
>>>>>>>> to fear malware with Linux.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nor from Vista.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> False.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jacka*s! At one point, the user(s) Vista or linux has to do
>>>>>>> something to allow unwanted access to their computer. Malware
>>>>>>> does not simply get into any computer all by itself.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Really? Read this and eat your words:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.computerworld.com/action...ArticleBasic&articleId=9026323&intsrc=hm_list
>>>>>> You might also want to educate yourself on wireless networks by
>>>>>> reading Stephen's post.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You're so full misleading lies as to be unbelievable!
>>>>>>> You think anyone in this ng any longer believes anything you say?
>>>>>>> Grow the fu*k up you stupid moron!
>>>>>>> BTW, that's and insult...lol!
>>>>>>> Frank
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I know that your "arguments" are mere insults. That's obvious.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Alias
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hey a*shole, we're not talking wireless.
>>>>> Read the post you stupid moron!
>>>>> Frank
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Frank... you're dealing with someone who is mentally unstable
>>>> and prone to making threats of violence and attempts to get
>>>> those who disagree with him sacked from their work places.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Oh...you mean he's a real moron who also just happens to be an idiot?
>>> You mean he's suffering from a Napoleonic complex and is really
>>> filled with fear cause he couldn't fight his way out of a paper bag?
>>> Is that what you mean?
>>
>>
>> There is that, but he is also liable to email someones employer and
>> tell grass them up. Of course missusing company facilities is not right
>> but what sort of creature would take it upon them selves to
>> risk putting the persons wife and children in the workhouse?
>>
>> Alias, that's who.
>>
>> Alias, admits to breaking laws himself (marijauana)
>> but woe betide anyone he finds transgressing.
>>
>>
>>
>>
> Well, I truly believe he is a fugitive of justice from the USA hiding in
> spain.

Not possible. Only an ill informed fool like you would believe that. In
order for me to enter Spain, I have to have a valid passport. In order
to *stay* in Spain, I have to *renew* my passport. All passport renewal
applications are sent to both the FBI and the IRS before issuance.

Now, if I were in Mexico where a ten dollar bill is the only passport
you need to enter the country, you might have a point.

Alias

Snip unfounded and base LIES.

 

[MICHAEL]

* Frank:

> Well, I truly believe he is a fugitive of justice from the USA hiding in
> spain.
> He proly has wants & warrants out for his arrests.
> He proly skipped bail.
> He deserves to be brought to justice.
> Frank

Frank,

Is all that really necessary?

Aren't you better than this?

I admit, I can "go off" at times, but
you really don't ever stop. Yes, Alias
can be rather lame and boorish at times.
However, you certainly don't have to engage
him over a bunch of uselessness all the time.

If Alias doesn't want to share his reasons
for wanting to live in Spain, that is his prerogative.
It's really none of your or my business.
Assumptions and accusations don't usually
serve much of a productive purpose.


Take care,

Michael

 

[Alias]

MICHAEL wrote:
> * Frank:
>
>> Well, I truly believe he is a fugitive of justice from the USA hiding in
>> spain.
>> He proly has wants & warrants out for his arrests.
>> He proly skipped bail.
>> He deserves to be brought to justice.
>> Frank
>
> Frank,
>
> Is all that really necessary?
>
> Aren't you better than this?
>
> I admit, I can "go off" at times, but
> you really don't ever stop. Yes, Alias
> can be rather lame and boorish at times.
> However, you certainly don't have to engage
> him over a bunch of uselessness all the time.
>
> If Alias doesn't want to share his reasons
> for wanting to live in Spain, that is his prerogative.
> It's really none of your or my business.
> Assumptions and accusations don't usually
> serve much of a productive purpose.
>
>
> Take care,
>
> Michael

He can't help himself any more than the scorpion could in the Scorpion
and the Frog story.

Alias

 

[Stephan Rose]

On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 08:32:19 -0700, Frank wrote:

> Stephan Rose wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 17:06:37 -0700, Frank wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Alias wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Something written for Linux that carries an evil payload will not make
>>>>it into the repositories. Your premise that there are more Windows boxes
>>>>around is totally not relevant and rapidly reversing itself.
>>>
>>>You are nothing but a lying sack of sh*t!
>>>Could you possible make a bigger fool out of yourself or mislead others
>>>anymore than you already have?
>>>
>>> If someone
>>>
>>>>only installs using approved repositories, they have no reason to fear
>>>>malware with Linux.
>>>
>>>Nor from Vista. Jacka*s! At one point, the user(s) Vista or linux has to
>>>do something to allow unwanted access to their computer. Malware does
>>>not simply get into any computer all by itself.
>>
>>
>> Actually frank, it can. Maybe not on a single non-wireless home PC but in
>> the wireless world? That's a whole different story.
>>
>> But take my co-workers PC that I cleaned out recently and installed Ubuntu
>> on for example. When he brought it to me, it had 60 concurrently running
>> malware processes! YES! I am NOT KIDDING, I actually counted them by hand
>> staring at the task manager in complete disbelief.
>>
>> CPU Usage never dropped below 80% on it and the HDD light was brightly
>> lit. The killer thing was is that he didn't even know anything was "wrong"
>> with his machine. He thought this was normal. He only brought it to my
>> attention because he occasionally kept getting a Virus warning from norton
>> anti virus and didn't know what to do about it.
>>
>> Boot-up time for the machine was about 10-15 minutes.
>>
>> So anyway...
>>
>> Now take that computer, which was a notebook, add a wireless card to it
>> (it didn't come with one, older model), and walk into any unprotected
>> wireless network with it which there are plenty of in existence, even in
>> the corporate world. Also plenty of internet cafes and similar have
>> unprotected networks to provide internet access to their customers.
>>
>> It would likely not take more than a few minutes for this machine to start
>> contacting and infecting every other windows machine it can find on the
>> network.
>>
>> That's how crap like this can spread without user intervention,
>> particularly in dense residential areas with overlapping unprotected
>> networks. Stuff like this can just go hop from network, to network, to
>> network.
>>
>> That's why this stuff spreads so fast and it such a huge problem.
>>
>
> Stephen, we're talking about Vista. Did he have Vista running on his
> computer that you replaced with Ubuntu?

Dell Inspiron 1100 with 256 megs of RAM and on-board video with 8 megs of
video ram and a 2 GHz Celeron. You tell me if it was running Vista or not. =)

Only reason I actually mentioned his machine was to have a computer to use
as a frame of reference as to how a system as infected as that would
spread its malware without user intervention when introduced into an
unsecured wireless network.

Of course on his particular system, most of the malware, spywhere and
viruses floating around on it were put there by user intervention. He's
the kind of person who will just click around on things hoping it goes
away. On a scale of 1 to 10, his technical level is somewhere below 0.

So yea, in his particular case, I'd say at least 75% if not more of the
crap on his system the only person he had to blame for is himself and not
the operating system. But hey, just think what happens now if you give a
system that badly infected wireless access and a network to play with. Not
even Vista is immune to stuff like that as Vista isn't immune to security
holes and bugs either. No operating system is. =)

And honestly, Vista wouldn't even be an option for him.

- His system would be hopelessly incapable of running Vista.

- He couldn't afford a system that could run Vista any reasonable way. His
system was even below spec for XP!

- He doesn't even have a need for a faster system in the first place.
Performance wise, it meets 100% of his needs. Something I think Microsoft
is neglecting far too much.

- Not even UAC could help him. I can guarantee it'd take less than a week
until he were to click "allow" for the first malware not knowing or
understanding why he has to click on buttons in the first place.

- Peripheral support is a big question mark. I don't know what would be
supported or what not. But as you can suspect by the specs and age of his
system, his peripherals are on the same level for the most part. Plus he
doesn't even really know what a Driver is and what to do with it.

That's why I picked Ubuntu for him instead of reinstalling XP which I
could have also done via the restore desks.

- Runs perfectly fine on the hardware, even with only 256 megs of ram.

- Doesn't cost anything which fits perfectly in his budget.

- It's more resistant to his lack of any technical knowledge whatsoever.
He can't destroy anything critical on accident. He can't accidentally
allow any bad software to run on his machine as it's tough to accidentally
type in a password, even for him. I taught him to never enter his password
unless he really knows why. He feels better and more comfortable with that
security model than he does about a "Yes / no" type UAC prompt.

That's without taking into the account that running across linux malware
is rather difficult in the first place. Though, believe me, if someone can
manage to find the ONE single malware for linux and infect his system,
he's probably going to be the one!

- Software wise it meets every single one of his needs and then some.

- Every peripheral we've thrown at it has worked plug & play. No driver
install required. I just checked ahead of time to make sure his printer
wasn't a Cannon. =)

And as far as system configuration is concerned, he wouldn't be able to
configure XP, Vista or Ubuntu. He can use a pre-configured system and
that's about where his abilities end. So from a configuration standpoint,
regardless if easy or difficult, were or little concern.

I actually gotta admit, installing Ubuntu on that particular hardware was a
minor challenge even for me. I actually had to do a BIOS update first and
then get the really weird LCD working as it has no support for scaling at
non-native resolutions and other weird quirks.

--
Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6

å›ã®ã“ã¨æ€ã„出ã™æ—¥ãªã‚“ã¦ãªã„ã®ã¯
å›ã®ã“ã¨å¿˜ã‚ŒãŸã¨ããŒãªã„ã‹ã‚‰

 

[Stephan Rose]

On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 09:59:31 -0600, Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:

> And neither company have any control over 3rd party manufacturers.
>
> "someone bashes Linux for poor hardware support"
> What I see is others saying Linux does not support their hardware.
> That is far from bashing Linux.
> Those that simply bash the operating system display their own lack of
> knowledge.
> But if their hardware is not supported that can be a reason for them
> to avoid Linux.
> That may be a good reason to go to any operating system including
> Windows Vista.
> People need to verify their essential hardware works with the desired
> operating system before making the change

You know what, I can actually agree with everything you said there.

However there is one thing I do consider. Microsoft may not have control
over 3rd party manufacturers. That is very true and you're 100% correct.

They do however have control over their own operating system. I personally
would expect that when they upgrade the operating system that they
maintain compatibility to their existing driver architecture.

It's fine if they tell manufacturers that if they want to use new features
built into the operating system for their devices, they need to use the
new driver architecture and get their drivers up to date.

I would also accept if the Operating system notified me that I was using a
device with an outdated driver.

But I do expect all my existing hardware to work, within reasonable
limits, with the latest and greatest. Which basically means that anything
that worked under XP, I'd even be fine with narrowing it to XP SP2,
should work with Vista using the existing drivers.

It'd be fine with me if it would mean giving up a new feature or two
(though I'd expect to maintain all features I had under XP).

Something roughly along those lines I'd be fine with.

There are thousands of hardware devices out there. Not even the largest
manufacturers have the resources to just develop drivers for a new
operating system that also works different in many ways for all their
hardware over night! It's just impossible.

So for Microsoft to go point the finger at 3rd Party manufacturers and not
provide sufficient backward compatibility to XP drivers I personally find
absolutely pathetic.

--
Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6

å›ã®ã“ã¨æ€ã„出ã™æ—¥ãªã‚“ã¦ãªã„ã®ã¯
å›ã®ã“ã¨å¿˜ã‚ŒãŸã¨ããŒãªã„ã‹ã‚‰

 

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

"that they maintain compatibility to their existing driver
architecture"
There is backwards compatibility which is why much older hardware
works including a 5 year old HP Printer...until it had an unrelated
hardware failure a few months ago.
However total backwards compatibility is not possible if there is to
be progress.
While you want more than there is, there are others that feel
Microsoft went to far.
Less or no backwards compatibility would have left Windows Vista
trimmer and many wanted that.

"to just develop drivers for a new operating system that also works
different in many ways for all their hardware over night!"
Overnight is far from the case.
The Beta was nearly a year or possibly longer.
The major manufacturers had access to the code to begin preliminary
development all along.
They all had access in the later stages of the Beta.
At this point, 8 months after RTM, the manufacturers have had plenty
of time to support all their hardware that they determined their
customers need.
If hardware is not yet supported, that is a decision the manufacturer
has made for their customers.

"But I do expect all my existing hardware to work,"
You might expect it, but it has never been the case.
That is why it is necessary to research before upgrading.
Windows XP will be supported for several more years so in the short
term, support is not an issue.

" It'd be fine with me if it would mean giving up a new feature or
two"
That actually sound like staying with the current operating system
which is probably best for most users.

"sufficient backward compatibility"
What do you consider sufficient?
Anything less that total and someone will be left outside.

Total backwards compatibility is not possible given the nearly endless
list of former and current manufacturers as well as their products..


--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar
http://www.dts-l.org


"Stephan Rose" <nospam@spammer.com> wrote in message
news:U7ednW1gMeI9FA_bnZ2dnUVZ8sfinZ2d@giganews.com...
> On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 09:59:31 -0600, Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:
> You know what, I can actually agree with everything you said there.
>
> However there is one thing I do consider. Microsoft may not have
> control
> over 3rd party manufacturers. That is very true and you're 100%
> correct.
>
> They do however have control over their own operating system. I
> personally
> would expect that when they upgrade the operating system that they
> maintain compatibility to their existing driver architecture.
>
> It's fine if they tell manufacturers that if they want to use new
> features
> built into the operating system for their devices, they need to use
> the
> new driver architecture and get their drivers up to date.
>
> I would also accept if the Operating system notified me that I was
> using a
> device with an outdated driver.
>
> But I do expect all my existing hardware to work, within reasonable
> limits, with the latest and greatest. Which basically means that
> anything
> that worked under XP, I'd even be fine with narrowing it to XP SP2,
> should work with Vista using the existing drivers.
>
> It'd be fine with me if it would mean giving up a new feature or two
> (though I'd expect to maintain all features I had under XP).
>
> Something roughly along those lines I'd be fine with.
>
> There are thousands of hardware devices out there. Not even the
> largest
> manufacturers have the resources to just develop drivers for a new
> operating system that also works different in many ways for all
> their
> hardware over night! It's just impossible.
>
> So for Microsoft to go point the finger at 3rd Party manufacturers
> and not
> provide sufficient backward compatibility to XP drivers I personally
> find
> absolutely pathetic.
>
> --
> Stephan
> 2003 Yamaha R6
>
> å›ã®ã“ã¨æ€ã„出ã™æ—¥ãªã‚“ã¦ãªã„ã®ã¯
> å›ã®ã“ã¨å¿˜ã‚ŒãŸã¨ããŒãªã„ã‹ã‚‰

 

[Lang Murphy]

"Mr. Happy" <mrhappy@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:1183652889.262684@netadmin1.interbaun.net...
> Alias wrote:
>
>> MICHAEL wrote:
>>>
>>> * Alias:
>>>> MICHAEL wrote:
>>>>> * Alias:
>>>>>> MICHAEL wrote:
>>>>>>> * Alias:
>>>>>>>> Back to the present. Use Ubuntu and never worry about a virus, root
>>>>>>>> kit or any other
>>>>>>>> malware. http://www.ubuntu.com/
>>>>>>> http://www.sans.org/reading_room/whitepapers/linux/901.php Linux
>>>>>>> RootKits For Beginners - From Prevention to Removal
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> One day while reading a mail list for the Linux Users Group in my
>>>>>>> hometown I discovered a call for help. It was a posting from a
>>>>>>> novice
>>>>>>> Linux user with a disturbing issue. While doing some routine checks
>>>>>>> on a Linux system, he found a user that had been added to the system
>>>>>>> with the user id of 0 (root). His first thought was that it might be
>>>>>>> a rootkit. He wanted to know what he could do to verify it was a
>>>>>>> rootkit and how to remove it from the system. He further asked for
>>>>>>> suggestions on preventative measures to ensure this kind of attack
>>>>>>> does not reoccur. That situation prompted me to write this paper to
>>>>>>> an understanding of rootkits and its effects. This
>>>>>>> paper will also discuss how to monitor for a rootkit, and the steps
>>>>>>> that need to be
>>>>>>> taken to remove one.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I never said that a firewall wasn't necessary. Ubuntu comes with one
>>>>>> built-in. I would also recommend a router hard firewall.
>>>>> "Use Ubuntu and never worry about a virus, root kit or any other
>>>>> malware." -Alias
>>>>>
>>>>> You said "never", you were wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Absolute truth" is for absolute fools.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -Michael
>>>> Is there an echo in here?
>>>
>>> Only the echoes of your foolish nonsense.
>>>
>>>> If one has Ubuntu that comes with a firewall
>>>
>>> So does Vista.
>>>
>>>> and a router with a firewall how, pray tell, will anyone install a root
>>>> kit?
>>>
>>> You never stated that in your original reply.
>>>
>>> "Use Ubuntu and never worry about a virus, root kit
>>> or any other malware." -Alias
>>>
>>> I see no mention of using additional security measures.
>>
>> No need. A firewall is automatically installed when you install Ubuntu.
>>
> I think some of the confusion amongst Windows users on this question is
> that
> Windows does have a firewall ... an actual application that can be
> installed or may come installed by default, depending on the version of
> Windows and can be turned on or off. Ubuntu doesn't have such an
> application installed by default, as Linux doesn't use an application to
> give one a "firewall". Linux, by design, is a firewall. All ports are
> closed unless one specifically opens a service that then opens a port to
> the outside world. This is controlled by iptable rules. There are
> frontends
> to iptables that are apps one can install in Linux that gives one a GUI
> way
> to write iptable rules. But they in themselves aren't a firewall in the
> sense one is familiar with in Windows.
>
> To say "a firewall is automatically installed when you install Ubuntu" is
> not technically correct and leaves Windows users to say that Windows does
> the same. They are not at all the same. A Linux box doesn't need
> a "firewall". If you run services that open specific ports that you don't
> want the outside world to be able to access and just be accessible within
> your LAN, then you can set iptable rules to block outside access. But
> there
> are other ways with most services to configure them individually to do the
> same, or use hosts.allow and hosts.deny to lock down some of the ports
> some
> services use. A NAT router is really all one needs to offer intrusion
> protection within a Linux based LAN.
>
> Shake Hands With,
> Mr. Happy
>

Facts? Who needs stinkin' facts? Not Alias, apparently... I notice he didn't
respond to your educating post.

Lang