Alias

"Alias" wrote in message

news:h860mf$hvt$1@news.eternal-september.org...

>

>

 

 

My computers are shaking in their (re)boots.

 

--

Jon

Just block port 445 until the patch comes out - real easy to do with Windows

7's built-in firewall.

 

Saucy

 

 

"Alias" wrote in message

news:h860mf$hvt$1@news.eternal-september.org...

>

>

> Alias

Saucy wrote:

> Just block port 445 until the patch comes out - real easy to do with

> Windows 7's built-in firewall.

>

> Saucy

 

Easy if you know to do it. Most Windows users don't have a clue as to

how to access their firewall, much less configure it. Hence, my post and

link.

 

With Ubuntu and a NAT firewall enabled router, no port is open to the

public.

 

Alias

>

>

> "Alias" wrote in message

> news:h860mf$hvt$1@news.eternal-september.org...

>>

>>

>>

>> Alias

>

"Alias" wrote in message

news:h86q2s$5l0$1@news.eternal-september.org...

> Saucy wrote:

>> Just block port 445 until the patch comes out - real easy to do with

>> Windows 7's built-in firewall.

>>

>> Saucy

>

> Easy if you know to do it. Most Windows users don't have a clue as to how

> to access their firewall, much less configure it. Hence, my post and link.

 

What's with "Worry'?

That doesn't get anyone anywhere, therefore it doesn't belong.

To warn someone is quite another story and coming from the right source it

even is commendable, but the way this one does sneak up,

it isn't.

Personally I have to wonder who or what is really behind this all.

Myself, I don't have anything to be concerned about.

Oh, and take your Ubuntu thing back to Mama, please.

 

Harry.

>

> With Ubuntu and a NAT firewall enabled router, no port is open to the

> public.

>

> Alias

>>

>>

>> "Alias" wrote in message

>> news:h860mf$hvt$1@news.eternal-september.org...

>>>

>>>

>>> Alias

>>

"Alias" wrote in message

news:h86q2s$5l0$1@news.eternal-september.org...

> Saucy wrote:

>> Just block port 445 until the patch comes out - real easy to do with

>> Windows 7's built-in firewall.

>>

>> Saucy

>

> Easy if you know to do it. Most Windows users don't have a clue as to how

> to access their firewall, much less configure it. Hence, my post and link.

>

> With Ubuntu and a NAT firewall enabled router, no port is open to the

> public.

 

And you really think people will switch to Ubuntu because of that?

 

I doubt it very much, especially from someone who promotes it in a Vista

forum.

and nothing works in Linux either, you know ports blocked....

webster72n wrote:

>

>

>

> "Alias" wrote in message

> news:h86q2s$5l0$1@news.eternal-september.org...

>> Saucy wrote:

>>> Just block port 445 until the patch comes out - real easy to do with

>>> Windows 7's built-in firewall.

>>>

>>> Saucy

>>

>> Easy if you know to do it. Most Windows users don't have a clue as to

>> how to access their firewall, much less configure it. Hence, my post

>> and link.

>

> What's with "Worry'?

 

What me, worry?

> That doesn't get anyone anywhere, therefore it doesn't belong.

 

Guess what, sport, you're not the moderator here.

> To warn someone is quite another story and coming from the right source

 

Which is what I did.

> it even is commendable, but the way this one does sneak up,

> it isn't.

 

You don't think that an open flaw in Vista and Win7 is worrisome?

> Personally I have to wonder who or what is really behind this all.

> Myself, I don't have anything to be concerned about.

> Oh, and take your Ubuntu thing back to Mama, please.

 

What will your Mama do with it?

 

Alias

>

> Harry.

>

>>

>> With Ubuntu and a NAT firewall enabled router, no port is open to the

>> public.

>>

>> Alias

>>>

>>>

>>> "Alias" wrote in message

>>> news:h860mf$hvt$1@news.eternal-september.org...

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> Alias

>>>

Andy Huang wrote:

> and nothing works in Linux either, you know ports blocked....

 

No, I don't know because *everything* in Ubuntu works for me.

 

Alias

G.R. Barker wrote:

>

>

> "Alias" wrote in message

> news:h86q2s$5l0$1@news.eternal-september.org...

>> Saucy wrote:

>>> Just block port 445 until the patch comes out - real easy to do with

>>> Windows 7's built-in firewall.

>>>

>>> Saucy

>>

>> Easy if you know to do it. Most Windows users don't have a clue as to

>> how to access their firewall, much less configure it. Hence, my post

>> and link.

>>

>> With Ubuntu and a NAT firewall enabled router, no port is open to the

>> public.

>

> And you really think people will switch to Ubuntu because of that?

 

People are free to choose and is safety on the Net is a concern and not

getting malware to deal with is a concern, hell yes!

>

> I doubt it very much, especially from someone who promotes it in a Vista

> forum.

 

Where do you think I should promote it, in a Linux forum? Have you

always been this dense?

 

Alias

"Alias" wrote in message

news:h87ren$br6$3@news.eternal-september.org...

> G.R. Barker wrote:

>> And you really think people will switch to Ubuntu because of that?

>

> People are free to choose and is safety on the Net is a concern and not

> getting malware to deal with is a concern, hell yes!

 

I did not once mention that safety was not a concern. I merely asked the

question 'do you really think people will switch to Ubuntu for the reason

you posed'. I do not think it will make the slightest bit of difference.

>> I doubt it very much, especially from someone who promotes it in a Vista

>> forum.

>

> Where do you think I should promote it, in a Linux forum? Have you always

> been this dense?

 

Once again, you fail to see the point of that statement. Stating in your

title that we should worry about two other OS's and so using scare tactics

to try and sell your product in here, hints of an act of desperation.

Basically, it will not work.

 

It seems that you're the one that is dense. Try reading the posts correctly

next time.

G.R. Barker wrote:

>

>

> "Alias" wrote in message

> news:h87ren$br6$3@news.eternal-september.org...

>> G.R. Barker wrote:

>

>>> And you really think people will switch to Ubuntu because of that?

>>

>> People are free to choose and is safety on the Net is a concern and

>> not getting malware to deal with is a concern, hell yes!

>

> I did not once mention that safety was not a concern. I merely asked

> the question 'do you really think people will switch to Ubuntu for the

> reason you posed'. I do not think it will make the slightest bit of

> difference.

 

And the reason is safety.

>

>>> I doubt it very much, especially from someone who promotes it in a

>>> Vista forum.

>>

>> Where do you think I should promote it, in a Linux forum? Have you

>> always been this dense?

>

> Once again, you fail to see the point of that statement. Stating in

> your title that we should worry about two other OS's and so using scare

> tactics to try and sell your product in here, hints of an act of

> desperation. Basically, it will not work.

>

> It seems that you're the one that is dense. Try reading the posts

> correctly next time.

>

>

>

>

>

 

One of the flaws has been around since 1999. How long does a Windows

user have to wait?

 

Yes, one should be afraid of compromising one's computer and it ain't no

stinking "scare tactics". With Ubuntu, one need not worry about this

sort of thing. http://www.ubuntu.com/

 

Alias

>> Easy if you know to do it. Most Windows users don't have a clue as to

>> how to access their firewall, much less configure it. Hence, my post

>> and link.

>>

>> With Ubuntu and a NAT firewall enabled router, no port is open to the

>> public.

>

> And you really think people will switch to Ubuntu because of that?

>

> I doubt it very much, especially from someone who promotes it in a

> Vista forum.

 

Can I ask where else one should try to promote any product....where people

already use it ?

 

No. Where people use a different product.....in this case, Vista.

I USE MANY DIFFERENT OS's and I love vista and Ubuntu!!

But having a reality check with microsoft I can make money! and well ubuntu

and linux really don't pay the bills. I always believe you can say its a car

to the masses and it is, but they won't BUY IT CAUSE U drive from the back

seat.. unfortunately ubuntu didn't lose to windows.. it lost most users who

would use it to APPLE. linux will never have more than the market it has now

and well, when a distro in linux fails the adverage Joe would go buy a pc or

a mac then try to fix it, it's way above the home users ability.

 

"Alias" wrote in message

news:h87rc8$br6$2@news.eternal-september.org...

> Andy Huang wrote:

>> and nothing works in Linux either, you know ports blocked....

>

> No, I don't know because *everything* in Ubuntu works for me.

>

> Alias

RAYMOND PISTEY wrote:

> But having a reality check with microsoft I can make money!

 

Really? How does one make money with a reality check with Microsoft?

 

Alias

G.R. Barker wrote:

>

>>> And you really think people will switch to Ubuntu because of that?

>

you're responding to a troll. Alias spends all day in here making stupid

posts like this spouting off about Ubuntu, constantly. No matter what

logic you use, he won't care, he will keep doing it, best thing to do is

just killfile his inane drivel.

"Alias" wrote in message

news:h88648$mm1$1@news.eternal-september.org...

> G.R. Barker wrote:

>>

>>

>> "Alias" wrote in message

>> news:h87ren$br6$3@news.eternal-september.org...

>>> G.R. Barker wrote:

>>

>>>> And you really think people will switch to Ubuntu because of that?

>>>

>>> People are free to choose and is safety on the Net is a concern and not

>>> getting malware to deal with is a concern, hell yes!

>>

>> I did not once mention that safety was not a concern. I merely asked the

>> question 'do you really think people will switch to Ubuntu for the reason

>> you posed'. I do not think it will make the slightest bit of difference.

> And the reason is safety.

 

That does not answer the question I posed and once again you have avoided

it.

 

I will try again because I can see you are finding it quite difficult to

understand.

 

Do you really think people will switch to Ubuntu because of your cries of

worry with Vista and Windows 7?

 

My answer to that would be I doubt it very much. What would you answer be?

 

> One of the flaws has been around since 1999. How long does a Windows user

> have to wait?

 

Well it has not affected me or millions of others I suspect and I can't wait

to upgrade to Windows 7 in October.

 

I have heard nothing but good reports about it from real experts but

obviously you're going to get the odd salesperson or biased opinion against

it from people like you who have no doubt, an ulterior motive.

> Yes, one should be afraid of compromising one's computer and it ain't no

> stinking "scare tactics". With Ubuntu, one need not worry about this sort

> of thing. http://www.ubuntu.com/

 

But then you would say that wouldn't you because as I said before, you are

trying to promote for your own ends.

 

Your scare tactics do not scare me!

"milt" wrote in message

news:e5vI6hVMKHA.1280@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

> G.R. Barker wrote:

>>

>>>> And you really think people will switch to Ubuntu because of that?

>>

> you're responding to a troll. Alias spends all day in here making stupid

> posts like this spouting off about Ubuntu, constantly. No matter what

> logic you use, he won't care, he will keep doing it, best thing to do is

> just killfile his inane drivel.

 

Yes, I thought as much. Thanks for the advice Milt. Very good advice by

the sounds of it.

G.R. Barker wrote:

>

>

> "Alias" wrote in message

> news:h88648$mm1$1@news.eternal-september.org...

>> G.R. Barker wrote:

>>>

>>>

>>> "Alias" wrote in message

>>> news:h87ren$br6$3@news.eternal-september.org...

>>>> G.R. Barker wrote:

>>>

>>>>> And you really think people will switch to Ubuntu because of that?

>>>>

>>>> People are free to choose and is safety on the Net is a concern and

>>>> not getting malware to deal with is a concern, hell yes!

>>>

>>> I did not once mention that safety was not a concern. I merely asked

>>> the question 'do you really think people will switch to Ubuntu for

>>> the reason you posed'. I do not think it will make the slightest bit

>>> of difference.

>

>> And the reason is safety.

>

> That does not answer the question I posed and once again you have

> avoided it.

>

> I will try again because I can see you are finding it quite difficult to

> understand.

>

> Do you really think people will switch to Ubuntu because of your cries

> of worry with Vista and Windows 7?

 

If they're smart, they will.

>

> My answer to that would be I doubt it very much. What would you answer be?

 

See above.

>

>

>> One of the flaws has been around since 1999. How long does a Windows

>> user have to wait?

>

> Well it has not affected me or millions of others I suspect and I can't

> wait to upgrade to Windows 7 in October.

 

It only affects Windows 7. Good luck.

>

> I have heard nothing but good reports about it from real experts but

> obviously you're going to get the odd salesperson or biased opinion

> against it from people like you who have no doubt, an ulterior motive.

 

Try googling it if you know how.

>

>> Yes, one should be afraid of compromising one's computer and it ain't

>> no stinking "scare tactics". With Ubuntu, one need not worry about

>> this sort of thing. http://www.ubuntu.com/

>

> But then you would say that wouldn't you because as I said before, you

> are trying to promote for your own ends.

 

And my ends are?

>

> Your scare tactics do not scare me!

 

That's because you're stupid. Fact: Windows is malware prone. Ubuntu is

not.

 

Alias

milt wrote:

>

> G.R. Barker wrote:

>>

>>>> And you really think people will switch to Ubuntu because of that?

>>

> you're responding to a troll. Alias spends all day in here making stupid

> posts like this spouting off about Ubuntu, constantly. No matter what

> logic you use, he won't care, he will keep doing it, best thing to do is

> just killfile his inane drivel.

 

Translation: Milt has his head in the sand. He also lies because I am

not here "all day".

 

Alias

> ZIP

"Alias" wrote in message

news:h88hes$dfa$2@news.eternal-september.org...

> milt wrote:

>>

>> G.R. Barker wrote:

>>>

>>>>> And you really think people will switch to Ubuntu because of that?

>>>

>> you're responding to a troll. Alias spends all day in here making stupid

>> posts like this spouting off about Ubuntu, constantly. No matter what

>> logic you use, he won't care, he will keep doing it, best thing to do is

>> just killfile his inane drivel.

>

> Translation: Milt has his head in the sand. He also lies because I am not

> here "all day".

 

Don't bother, period!

>

> Alias

On Wed, 09 Sep 2009 09:22:11 -0400, RAYMOND PISTEY wrote:

> unfortunately ubuntu didn't lose to windows.. it lost most users who

> would use it to APPLE. linux will never have more than the market it has

> now

 

maybe it's true Linux will lose to Apple (I don't know) but if so then

mainly in the US.

 

my impression is Apple has little presence in Europe and elsewhere. (I

mean as operating system on computers. I don't know how the iphone is

doing in Europe, say.)

 

should look at some real statistics but I am not sure what is reliable.

going on impressions, I think Linux is expanding significantly elsewhere,

for instance, in Germany.

 

F.

It's just plain easy:

 

Control Panel > Windows Firewall.

 

Take the least little bit of interest in computing and it's a no brainer.

'See, unlike on these innumberable and strange Linux distros out there,

blocking a port on Windows is easy. It might be hard to do on Ubuntu, but it

is no further away than the Control Panel on Windows.

 

Saucy

 

 

 

 

"Alias" wrote in message

news:h86q2s$5l0$1@news.eternal-september.org...

> Saucy wrote:

>> Just block port 445 until the patch comes out - real easy to do with

>> Windows 7's built-in firewall.

>>

>> Saucy

>

> Easy if you know to do it. Most Windows users don't have a clue as to how

> to access their firewall, much less configure it. Hence, my post and link.

>

> With Ubuntu and a NAT firewall enabled router, no port is open to the

> public.

>

> Alias

>>

>>

>> "Alias" wrote in message

>> news:h860mf$hvt$1@news.eternal-september.org...

>>>

>>>

>>> Alias

>>

INLINE with some cuts:

 

 

"Alias" wrote in message

news:h88hd1$dfa$1@news.eternal-september.org...

> G.R. Barker wrote:

>>

>>

>> "Alias" wrote in message

>> news:h88648$mm1$1@news.eternal-september.org...

>>> G.R. Barker wrote:

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> "Alias" wrote in message

>>>> news:h87ren$br6$3@news.eternal-september.org...

>>>>> G.R. Barker wrote:

>>>>

>>>>>> And you really think people will switch to Ubuntu because of that?

>>>>>

>>>>> People are free to choose and is safety on the Net is a concern and

>>>>> not getting malware to deal with is a concern, hell yes!

>>>>

>>>> I did not once mention that safety was not a concern. I merely asked

>>>> the question 'do you really think people will switch to Ubuntu for the

>>>> reason you posed'. I do not think it will make the slightest bit of

>>>> difference.

>>

>>> And the reason is safety.

>>

>> That does not answer the question I posed and once again you have avoided

>> it.

>>

>> I will try again because I can see you are finding it quite difficult to

>> understand.

>>

>> Do you really think people will switch to Ubuntu because of your cries of

>> worry with Vista and Windows 7?

>

> If they're smart, they will.

 

 

LOL - Is that the best you can come up with? There's no reason on earth

anyone would even install Ubuntu. If one wanted a Linux distro there are far

better distros out there - for free I might add. But Linux itself sucks.

It's a monolithic kernel OS which makes the device driver situation a major

difficulty. Want a new device? One that it not precompiled into the kernel?

Then recompile the kernel! This major issue might not be a problem for a

static computing project in a laboratory, but it makes for a ridiculous

situation in a general purpose operating system.

 

>

>>

>> Your scare tactics do not scare me!

>

> That's because you're stupid. Fact: Windows is malware prone. Ubuntu is

> not.

 

 

Alias, security by obscurity is just fooling yourself. In case you don't

check industry news, computers running UNIX / Linux are broken into and

hacked all the time. RedHat Linux has an errata list as long as your arm.

Yada yada sure sure when I mention security, Linux is suddenly reduced to

the "just the kernel". But let's face it, the kernel without a software

system doesn't do anything. So as a whole, the Linux system is a weak,

vulnerable and not all that secure, needing constant patching and updating

(and every time a new device comes along, a recompile). Funnily enough, many

/ most Linux distros have no or only crummy patch systems.

 

Sure, there is more casual "malware" written against Windows desktops. Why

try to exploit Linux desktops - there are hardly any out there.

 

But these days the malware writers are having to depend almost entirely on

social engineering tactics to get the malware installed. Windows is very

resistive. About the only chance these days that the malware writers have

otherwise is a "zero day", but every OS is vulnerable to that. Anyway, such

a thing hits the news usually same day regardless, enabling us to close the

port we need to etc. etc.

 

This is not IE 6 in 2002, Alias. Windows is much more secure than it used to

be. Users run with user not administrator privileges unless they give the

system permission to elevate. Internet Explorer 8 runs in a "Protected Mode"

armored sandbox. Nowadays, malware has to ask the user for permission. If it

were Linux instead of Windows, the same people who would say 'Yes" to the

malware are the same who would always run as "root". lol

 

> Alias

 

 

Don't be sad. Linux might have been a cool-o neat-o idea for the

self-appointed granola crunching hip crowd ex hippies and weak minded

socialist / communist painfully politically correct university and rainbow

coalition types in the early and mid 1990s. But in practice it isn't. It's

even losing market share in the small areas it used to be "ok" for, as now

there are systems replacing it that do better than just "ok". Besides, the

rainbow coalition has moved on. They are sitting pretty in coffee shops with

their Apple laptops running Apple's Mac OSX, not Linux. Let go, man. They've

moved on, so should you. 'Guess living in Spain down by the beach has sort

of left you out of the circuit. Your rainbow coalition and granola crunching

comrades are into laptops and OSX now, Alias.

 

Saucy