Way off topic (was: Re: 2nd bodies)
- From: dnichols@xxxxxxxxxxx (DoN. Nichols)
- Date: 22 Oct 2005 21:46:55 GMT
According to Rita Ä Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com>:
> Roger wrote:
>
> >> Why is it silly to refuse to use an OS to which can be
> >> attributed the majority of spam -- because it is spread by backdoors
> >
> > It's because of the way most users have it configured.
However -- note that most users have done little to no
configuration work on the OS, and the problems come because of the
*default* configuration of the OS as it comes from the vendor.
> >> installed by viruses, and used by the spammers on victim's systems?
> >> (This applies to all of Windows, but the spread of the viruses is
> >> made easier by sockets which Microsoft insisted on installing in the
> >> OS even
> >
> > Most of those viruses are spread by socially engineered e-mails that
> > get the user to do it to themselves.
Most -- but some have exploited holes in at least older versions
of OE which would allow an html "iframe" tag to cause it to auto-play a
supposed sound file (without even asking the user), which in reality was
an executable. And Windows plays a sound file (or displays an image) by
attempting to *run* it, and discovering that it is a sound file or an
image. Only these virii which claim to be sound files are *really*
executables, so it really does run the file, installing the virus.
And there are others which take advantage of protocols which are
enabled by default -- even though the user should have no need to have
them enabled until they learn enough about them to make reasonable use
of them. There are *far* too many stack overflow holes in network
protocols.
> >> though they were warned that it would make it *much* easier to use
> >> compromised machines to attack other machines, and especially to have
> >> clusters of compromised machines participate in a DDOS (Distributed
> >> Denial Of Service) attack against some net site or other. (And yes,
> >> such DDOS attacks do happen -- far too often.)
> >>
> >> Why is it silly to refuse to use an OS which requires me to
> >> re-validate the license whenever I make more than a minimal hardware
> >
> > Now that part I find to be really annoying as I have 4 machines and
> > nearly 4 terabytes of storage. OTOH The last time I changed a
> > motherboard I did not even have to revalidate XP Pro.
> >
> >> change to the system? I am constantly adding disks, replacing disks,
> >> and adding other SCSI devices -- as well as occasional upgrades of
> >> framebuffers (graphics cards to those of you who don't know
> >> unix-speak.)
> >
> > The last two graphics cards did not require revalidation either.
> > OTOH, I've had them require revalidation just by removing a drive,
> > rebooting, shutting down and reinstalling the original drive.
> >
> > However most of the drives that get swapped around are not external
> > USB drives. The system doesn't care at all about those.
You mean *are* external USB drives?
> Roger, I must say that this is probably the best well thought out response
> one can give. From personal experience I see a lot of this animosity coming
> from people that don't understand Windows or computers in general and find
> it easier to whine and bash instead of taking 30-seconds to open up and
> RTFM.
*What* FM? Why do you think that O'Brien has such a full line
of _The Missing Manual_ books for various flavors of Windows? The
vendor-supplied manuals are close to useless.
If you want *good* FMs, go to the unix world.
> I don't understand why Don thinks XP won't handle SCSI well?
I didn't say that I *did* think that it would not handle SCSI
well. (Though it *does* require add-on hardware to do so in most cases,
as SCSI is not a part of the typical system as supplied.) I was using
the list of SCSI drives which I have hung on *one* of my unix boxen as
an indication of the amount of changes which I am frequently doing.
Fourteen Ultra-SCSI drives plus a DVD-ROM on the built-in SCSI in my
Ultra-2, and a DVD-burner, a dual SCSI PCIMCIA adaptor, and two Exabyte
EXB 8505XL tape drives currently on the narrow SCSI from an Sbus card
added to the system.
> My XP box has
> SCSI U320 RAID. Plus, I have SCSI hotswap (SCA) bays I can plug in
> different drives without problem. Oh, I forgot that SCSI cardreader that I
> used to use before reluctantly going to a USB2 reader, the USB2 was slightly
> faster. I even have a SCSI 3.5" floppy drive, yes SCSI, which I can plug in
> on the fly if I want to. Within seconds XP assigns a drive letter and I'm
> using that device.
>
> In all honesty I have had more aggravation with my Linux box since I haven't
> devoted that much time into learning everything I need to know about it.
> So. I can safely say these problems are attributed to my pilot error. And
> yes, I really like Linux, Fedora Project especially.
I can imagine problems with linux -- in part because it is
trying to deal with hardware which has poorly documented, or even worse,
totally proprietary interfaces. They have done an amazing job,
supporting the number of cards and motherboards which they have, given
the handicaps which they have to overcome.
I particularly like OpenBSD (which I run on both Intel and Sun
SPARC systems), as well as the Solaris OS from sun.
I don't have to spend forever trying to learn what hidden little
gotchas the vendor has listening to the net, waiting for someone to
discover and exploit the holes. I don't have to try to stay on top of
an every-increasing number of patches, many of which break *real*
programs, and some of which don't even close the holes which they are
supposed to close.
OpenBSD has been through continuous review of the *source* code
(not available for Windows systems, unless someone steals and leaks it
to the "hacker" groups) to find and close security holes *before*
someone else takes advantage of them.
I'm sorry -- but you can't convince me that Windows is what I
want. It does not feel right for me. I've been using unix for too many
years, and I *know* how to use it, how to configure it, and how to
disable services which I don't want to have presenting open faces to the
world through the net.
With OpenBSD -- you have to learn how to turn *on* most of the
things which you may want to present to the net -- and in that learning,
you should also learn why you may not want it turned on, and how to
control what it does if you *do* want it turned on. The only things
turned on by default are ssh (Secure SHell) and sendmail. And sendmail,
by default, is only looking at internal addresses. (Yes, you can use
web browsers, mail clients, and other programs to establish *outbound*
connections -- but they will not be in the business of accepting
incoming connections.
And -- OpenBSD has an excellent program (pf -- Packet Filter),
to allow you to turn an inexpensive system into an *excellent* firewall.
(My router is purely a router (Cisco), so the firewall is a separate
box.
Enjoy,
DoN.
--
Email: <dnichols@xxxxxxxxxxx> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---
.
- References:
- 2nd bodies
- From: Gordon
- Re: 2nd bodies
- From: DoN. Nichols
- Re: 2nd bodies
- From: Roger
- 2nd bodies
- Prev by Date: Re: Apple's Aperature announcement
- Next by Date: Re: What is wrong with Canon?
- Previous by thread: Re: 2nd bodies
- Next by thread: Re: Way off topic (was: Re: 2nd bodies)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
