dennis@home

"Night0wl" <etillman@satx.rr.com> wrote in message
news:474d65bb$0$8874$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> dennis@home wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Night0wl" <etillman@satx.rr.com> wrote in message
>> news:474ceb83$0$28820$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>>> dennis@home wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Night0wl" <etillman@satx.rr.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:474c7f86$0$2384$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>>>>>>>> Do you linux idiots have a standard list of lies or do you just
>>>>>>>> believe each other when one of you lies?
>>>>>
>>>>> What lies?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When it comes to Windows, we don't care if they're tall stories, we
>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>> marvel at it and remain grateful we're not involved. Like stories
>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>> dragons breathing sulfurous fire.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You seem very comfortable calling people idiots without knowing
>>>>>>> anything
>>>>>>> about them, would it be reasonable to conclude that you are
>>>>>>> expressing a
>>>>>>> superiority complex caused by the deep rooted suspicion that the
>>>>>>> Linux
>>>>>>> users know stuff that you don't,
>>>>>
>>>>>> I have no doubt that there are lots of linux users and windows user
>>>>>> that know lots more than me. They haven't been posting here.
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh? Hows 20+ years of DOS/Windoze experience <<<snip>>>
>>>>
>>>> Isn't this the first time you have posted here in this thread?
>>>
>>> It may be the first time I've posted in /this/ thread, but, by far, not
>>> the first time I've posted in this newsgroup...
>>
>> Well here could mean the news group, however I meant the thread, sorry
>> for any ambiguity.
>>
> np...
>
>>>> Do you agree with the lies about it being impossible to use windows
>>>> without getting infected or the rest of the lies?
>>>
>>> You sound like a political propagandist, at worst, or, an apologist at
>>> best. Please see my earlier post about doing a fresh XP install,
>>> hooking into the internet, and what transpired there. I'm not seeing
>>> "lies" as much as fan-boy-isms -- on both sides of the issue.
>>
>> Well not from me, not once have I suggested using any OS here.
>
> Well, I do. I personally sought out a Linux distro that could do
> everything I needed/wanted it to do as a way of distancing myself from
> Windoze at home. I'm tired of the bloat, tired of my OS reporting home to
> the M$ mothership whenever it wants to, and tired of a company that can
> "update" my machines even when I have auto-update turned off.
>
>> I haven't suggested using windows to replace Linux or using a Mac to
>> replace Linux.
>
> But I strongly suggest Linux to replace Windoze, my expertise in the
> latter be damned...
>
>> I use Linux and windows.
>> I have used a Mac but a long time ago.
>
> As Have I. Mac is excellent for graphics, especially CGI -- Ask
> Lucasfilm, Roddenberry/Berman and/or J.M. Straczynski, all of whom
> use/used Mac for their space shots...

I think you will find their rendering farm is not Mac based. It was PCs last
time I looked, but so are Macs.
Its like the old one about Babylon 5 being done on amigas.. not really true.
You may as well say Pixar's are done on sketch pads as they are roughed out
on them first, Macs are just another step before the rendering farm.


>> Those are just a few of the OSes I have used.
>> None of them is right for everything, but these Linux liars are helping
>> no-one especially Linux.
>
> Depends on what you mean by "liars."

Well they know its not true but they still say it.
>
>> They appear to think anyone that posts from vista is doing something evil
>> which just proves they are stupid to think that way.
>
> Well... As this /is/ a Linux forum, I think they'd really appreciate
> participants posting from a Linux platform....

Why, are Linux users that stupid? Most aren't.
Nearly every Linux user out there found out about it from the net while
using windows.
I think it is a really brilliant idea to alienate windows users in order to
spread Linux, I wonder if they are paid by M$ to make Linux users look like
clowns. That is the only thing they are good at.

> '
>> They claim I am a troll yet everything I have said is true.. not one
>> thing they have said is true.
>
> I have my issues with both sides. This really isn't a world wherein the
> louder you yell your insults, the more right you are...


>>
>> Now we have the really stupid ones not knowing that most of the world
>> measures their timber in the large dimension first.. just shows how
>> limited their knowledge is and yet they claim to be engineers.
>
> This is really non-sequitur to the current issue...

What is the current issue?

>> There is no way they would ever get membership of the IEEE or any of the
>> European bodies.
>> I have been a member of the IEEE and I didn't even need to fill in
>> details of what I do so that is not a professional body.
>
> But CompTIA is, and I am a member of both IEEE and CompTIA.

It hasn't been very successful over here yet.
I looked at it but it was a bit simplistic and it doesn't give you any
advantages in having it ATM.

dennis@home

"Christopher Hunter" <chrisehunter@NOSPAMblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:s7j3j.40672$JA1.36684@fe2.news.blueyonder.co. uk...
> dennis@home wrote:
>
>> They appear to think anyone that posts from vista is doing something evil
>
> No - they just know that people fooled into parting with money for Vista
> are
> stupid.

Ah well there you go again.. you assume I paid for vista when I didn't.

Peter Köhlmann

dennis@home wrote:

>
>
> "Christopher Hunter" <chrisehunter@NOSPAMblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in
> message news:s7j3j.40672$JA1.36684@fe2.news.blueyonder.co. uk...
>> dennis@home wrote:
>>
>>> They appear to think anyone that posts from vista is doing something
>>> evil
>>
>> No - they just know that people fooled into parting with money for Vista
>> are
>> stupid.
>
> Ah well there you go again.. you assume I paid for vista when I didn't.

It is well known that windows users are thieves

Or idiots who think that the price for the computer system does not include
the costs for the windows OS
--
Warning: 10 days have passed since your last Windows reinstall.

Jon Solberg

J(ohn|ane) Doe wrote:
> [ste parker] wrote:
>
>> Mark South wrote:
>>> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 19:24:45 +0000, [ste parker] wrote:
>>>
> It's not an assumption as much as it is a loose definition of "malware".
> Or more accurately, a thorough definition. I have yet to run across a
> Windows machine that's free of *all* spyware in 30+ years of supporting
> Windows.

'30+ years of supporting Windows'? Windows has been around since 1985,
if I'm not entirely mistaken (that's +20 years). Please explain.

--
Jon Solberg (remove "nospam" from email address).

Mark South

On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 10:42:36 +0100, Jon Solberg wrote:

> J(ohn|ane) Doe wrote:
>> [ste parker] wrote:
>>
>>> Mark South wrote:

....nothing at all that was quoted.

>>>> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 19:24:45 +0000, [ste parker] wrote:
>>>>
>> It's not an assumption as much as it is a loose definition of "malware".
>> Or more accurately, a thorough definition. I have yet to run across a
>> Windows machine that's free of *all* spyware in 30+ years of supporting
>> Windows.
>
> '30+ years of supporting Windows'? Windows has been around since 1985,
> if I'm not entirely mistaken (that's +20 years). Please explain.

Left hand 1cm too far to the right for 1/10th of a second?

[ste parker]

Christopher Hunter wrote:
> [ste parker] wrote:
>
>> That's all fair enough, but, assuming what I've been reading is correct,
>> if you don't actually run the executables containing the storm worm then
>> you don't get infected, therefore it doesn't matter whether the virus
>> definitions are up to date or not.
>
> If a Windows user gets an e-mail from a friend (a "trusted" source), he'll
> open it - in some cases it'll get opened automatically. Game Over!
>
> There are also serious vulnerabilities in Internet Explorer - just browsing
> a suitably crafted web page can infect a Windows machine. Also Game Over!
>

Not using IE isn't the hardest thing in the world to do, neither is
setting an email client to not auto-preview. I've yet to see an email
I've received in Thunderbird automatically try to run anything on my
Windows system just by opening the email anyway (if you've information
that proves otherwise I'd be happy to read it though!), and so it comes
back to manually running an executable. Game over can admittedly easily
be reached, but it can also easily be avoided.

--
[ste]

[ste parker]

J(ohn|ane) Doe wrote:
> [ste parker] wrote:
>
>> But that's kind of what I mean, that's "most probably" whereas
>> Christoper Hunter suggests there's zero chance of there being no
>> malware. Yet, it's still just assumption, I've actually no way of
>
> It's not an assumption as much as it is a loose definition of "malware".
> Or more accurately, a thorough definition. I have yet to run across a
> Windows machine that's free of *all* spyware in 30+ years of supporting
> Windows.
>

Fair enough, but assuming (again!) that you use the same methods of
searching for spyware as I would, then by that measure I don't have any
whatsoever (not including any stuff shipped intentionally with Windows
which some would consider spyware, of course).

>> Yes, but does the act of receiving email automatically just infect a
>> Windows machine (assuming the mail doesn't auto-open or otherwise get
>> read)? I was under the impression not, and besides I barely get any
>> spam, let alone any that gets read, opened, or anything other than
>> removed.
>
> Most definitely. The mere act of opening an email can compromise a
> Windows machine. Same with web pages. That's why it's imperative that
> Windows users use third party applications, and why those applications in
> particular enjoy such a large market share compared to Windows itself.
>

That's not quite referring to what I asked, my question was around /not/
opening the email, just receiving it. Regarding third party apps
(presumably things like Firefox and Thunderbird), I do use those, and
certainly with Firefox there are many things which would download or be
executable from within IE which don't exhibit the same behaviour in FF.
In other words, although these things /can/ easily happen, they can also
easily be avoided in the main by following good procedures.

--
[ste]

Mark South

On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 11:01:13 +0000, [ste parker] wrote:

> Not using IE isn't the hardest thing in the world to do, neither is
> setting an email client to not auto-preview. I've yet to see an email
> I've received in Thunderbird automatically try to run anything on my
> Windows system just by opening the email anyway (if you've information
> that proves otherwise I'd be happy to read it though!), and so it comes
> back to manually running an executable. Game over can admittedly easily
> be reached, but it can also easily be avoided.

Hmm. It's good news that Microsoft disables IE and OE by default, and
sets up Firefox and Thunderbird instead.

Yeah. OK. We've now got zero Ubuntu content in this thread, and it's
time it came to a close.

Anyway, you can still be sure that if the rest of the world had been
running Windows when Hitler came to power, he would have become a spammer
and we'd still all be getting spam from the Nazi party.

"I am the dictator of a small country and I need your help getting
10,000,000 Reichsmarks in gold and I need your bank account."

"Cheap Zyklon-B, no prescription required."

"What is an OEM Panzerfaust, and why should I care?"

There. Somebody find a way to invoke Godwin's Law. Please!

[ste parker]

Mark South wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 11:01:13 +0000, [ste parker] wrote:
>
>> Not using IE isn't the hardest thing in the world to do, neither is
>> setting an email client to not auto-preview. I've yet to see an email
>> I've received in Thunderbird automatically try to run anything on my
>> Windows system just by opening the email anyway (if you've information
>> that proves otherwise I'd be happy to read it though!), and so it comes
>> back to manually running an executable. Game over can admittedly easily
>> be reached, but it can also easily be avoided.
>
> Hmm. It's good news that Microsoft disables IE and OE by default, and
> sets up Firefox and Thunderbird instead.
>

Yes, but what does that have to do with anything I wrote? Windows is
insecure and especially so by default, I've no argument with that. The
point is, many of the problems with Windows, such as issues with the
defaults you list, can be easily avoided (not least by changing entirely
to use Ubuntu, of course), and getting something such as the Storm worm
isn't necessarily as easy as just switching your PC on and going online.

> Yeah. OK. We've now got zero Ubuntu content in this thread, and it's
> time it came to a close.
>

It's got at least two mentions now

--
[ste]

caver1

>
> Not using IE isn't the hardest thing in the world to do, neither is
> setting an email client to not auto-preview. I've yet to see an email
> I've received in Thunderbird automatically try to run anything on my
> Windows system just by opening the email anyway (if you've information
> that proves otherwise I'd be happy to read it though!), and so it comes
> back to manually running an executable. Game over can admittedly easily
> be reached, but it can also easily be avoided.
>


Which is true but the majority of Windows users
that won't take those precautions. For example my
wife. I take care of her business computers. If I
don't set everything up to run properly
automatically she will not do it. She just wants
to get on do her thing and then get off.
She won't even delete old emails. Many are like
this and that is where the problem lies, not with
the few that know better.
so game over is true and works here is not the norm.
caver1