Jackie wrote:

 

> On 5/14/2010 13:13, Alias wrote:

 

>> If I have to prove that Windows is vulnerable to malware and Linux is

 

>> much more secure to you guys, then doing so is a futile endeavor and I'm

 

>> not into futile endeavors.

 

>>

 

>

 

> That is a very general statement compared to ones you have previously

 

> given. For example, you gave a statements such as "If you click on an ad

 

> laced with malware, you're giving it permission to run" and "there is

 

> malware that has developed the ability to fool ALL anti virus/malware

 

> apps and UAC". If you didn't see my response to this, please do that.

 

>

 

> Now, to answer your general statement...

 

> For malicious apps to cause any damage to the system, it must be

 

> elevated. I have already responded about the link you gave about

 

> bypassing AV software

 

> (http://www.h-online.com/security/news/item/New-attack-bypasses-anti-virus-software-997621.html).

 

>

 

>

 

> In pre-release versions of Windows 7, it was possible for a malicious

 

> application to take advantage of the automatic elevation option in

 

> Windows 7. I do not know if this was fixed in the final version.

 

> http://www.withinwindows.com/2009/02/04/windows-7-auto-elevation-mistake-lets-malware-elevate-freely-easily/

 

>

 

> This feature is not present in Ubuntu, and you *can* turn it off in

 

> Windows 7. That means it can no longer be taken advantage of.

 

>

 

> Of course, a malicious app could mess up your personal files that you

 

> always have full access to, but that applies for Linux as well.

 

>

 

> Ubuntu has AppArmor installed by default. This is a an access control

 

> system developed by Novell.

 

> You can read more about it here:

 

> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/AppArmor

 

>

 

> Unfortunately, Windows does not have that installed by default, but you

 

> can get similar solutions. I said earlier that I used Outpost Firewall

 

> Pro 2009 that has a "Host protection" feature that provides a pretty

 

> good amount of access control (like I mentioned in an earlier post). I

 

> also use Sandboxie to run certain applications with limited resources.

 

> http://www.sandboxie.com/

 

>

 

> Such solutions giving such great amount of control are not already

 

> pre-installed and/or very well integrated with Windows.

 

> Considering that a similar solution is pre-installed in Ubuntu and does

 

> not cost anything, I would say that it is indeed unfortunate for Windows.

 

 

 

Most people who use Windows don't update hardly anything. Techies can

 

secure a Windows install but, like you said, with Ubuntu, it's installed

 

securely by default.

 

 

 

--

 

Alias

John B. Slocomb wrote:

 

> On Fri, 14 May 2010 13:13:29 +0200, Alias

 

> wrote:

 

>

 

>> Jackie wrote:

 

>>> On 5/14/2010 12:36, Alias wrote:

 

>>>>> It would be nice if he could actually try to back anything he says up

 

>>>>> even he doesn't have any reliable references, because it really is like

 

>>>>> you say. Technical details would be good so that we can see if it even

 

>>>>> sounds logical or not.

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>

 

>>>> OR, you could do your own research and see if what I am saying is true.

 

>>>> What is it about you Windows users that makes you think everyone has to

 

>>>> prove to you what they say is true?

 

>>>>

 

>>>

 

>>> Unfortunately, this is getting a bit ridiculous.

 

>>> Facts are either true or false. I have said my part on why I believe

 

>>> what I believe. I don't feel that you have contributed much.

 

>>> If you feel that I am wrong, please enlighten me. If you don't want to

 

>>> bother convincing me and other people on why we are wrong, I suggest we

 

>>> stop talking about this because the conversation is already starting to

 

>>> become meaningless.

 

>>> If you have read my previous posts, does it really sound like I need to

 

>>> "do my own research"? What part of what you *you* say sounds even

 

>>> slightly convincing?

 

>>> You can believe whatever you want to believe, but if you do not have any

 

>>> intention on enlightening us, let's end this conversation right now.

 

>>

 

>> Regardless of any proof I may give, you and John won't believe me anyway

 

>> so what's the point?

 

>>

 

>> If I have to prove that Windows is vulnerable to malware and Linux is

 

>> much more secure to you guys, then doing so is a futile endeavor and I'm

 

>> not into futile endeavors.

 

>

 

>

 

> Yes if you actually demonstrated the truth of anything I'd accept what

 

> you said however you have yet to demonstrate a truth.

 

>

 

> You allege that Windows is more susceptible to malware then Linux but

 

> other then your say so why should we believe you?

 

>

 

> It is for a very good reason that "hearsay" is not accepted as

 

> evidence in a court of law. Why? It is too easy to prevaricate. A

 

> charge that has been leveled against you many times.

 

>

 

> John B. Slocomb

 

> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

 

 

 

Yawn.

 

 

 

--

 

Alias

John B. Slocomb wrote:

 

> On Fri, 14 May 2010 12:36:07 +0200, Alias

 

> wrote:

 

>

 

>> Jackie wrote:

 

>>> On 5/14/2010 03:06, John B. Slocomb wrote:

 

>>>> Ah Jackie, you are learning about Alias. He posts some unsupported

 

>>>> slander about Windows and when someone rebuts his post complete with

 

>>>> quotes and references to demonstrate validity he replies with

 

>>>> irrelevancies.

 

>>>>

 

>>>

 

>>> It would be nice if he could actually try to back anything he says up

 

>>> even he doesn't have any reliable references, because it really is like

 

>>> you say. Technical details would be good so that we can see if it even

 

>>> sounds logical or not.

 

>>>

 

>>

 

>> OR, you could do your own research and see if what I am saying is true.

 

>> What is it about you Windows users that makes you think everyone has to

 

>> prove to you what they say is true?

 

>

 

> I suppose because most of us prefer not to be lied to. If you

 

> don't/can't prove it how do we know that you aren't deliberately

 

> lying? And after you display your ignorance of computers a few times

 

> it is very difficult to accept that you know anything at all. Another

 

> reason is because many people are naturally polite and dislike saying

 

> "You are a liar" so instead that say something like "can you prove

 

> it?"

 

>

 

> And I don't believe that it is confined to Windows users, I doubt that

 

> many actually like to be lied to.

 

>

 

> John B. Slocomb

 

> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

 

 

 

Double yawn.

 

 

 

--

 

Alias

John B. Slocomb wrote:

 

> On Fri, 14 May 2010 12:34:58 +0200, Alias

 

> wrote:

 

>

 

>> John B. Slocomb wrote:

 

>>> On Thu, 13 May 2010 15:07:43 +0200, Jackie wrote:

 

>>>

 

>>>> On 5/13/2010 14:48, Alias wrote:

 

>>>>> Nor do I. I use both Windows and Linux.

 

>>>> Do you have anything to say about the other things I said? You quoted

 

>>>> everything in my post.

 

>>>

 

>>>

 

>>> Ah Jackie, you are learning about Alias. He posts some unsupported

 

>>> slander about Windows and when someone rebuts his post complete with

 

>>> quotes and references to demonstrate validity he replies with

 

>>> irrelevancies.

 

>>>

 

>>> Given that Alias seems to know very little about computers, witness

 

>>> his assertion that the Windows kernel is the Registry and that a

 

>>> certain compilation of Linux is a version based on the desktop

 

>>> environment, it seems likely that he is one of these "instant

 

>>> experts", that finally learned enough to turn the computer on and off

 

>>> and now portrays himself as the all knowing pundit.

 

>>>

 

>>>

 

>>> John B. Slocomb

 

>>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

 

>>

 

>> Wrong, I have *never* claimed to be a computer expert.

 

>

 

>

 

> You really, really, need to take some remedial reading classes as you

 

> are either unable to understand simple English, or perhaps you don't

 

> want to believe that you are wrong, yet again..

 

>

 

> In any event, the term I used in reference to you was "instant

 

> expert", used as a form of ridicule for those who, with little or no

 

> knowledge, run about telling everyone how to do their job. Or in your

 

> case what the best computer system is.

 

>

 

> The Indians had a folk story about a rat that found a lump of turmeric

 

> and started a provisions shop.

 

>

 

> John B. Slocomb

 

> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

 

 

 

Triple yawn.

 

 

 

--

 

Alias

"Alias" wrote in message

 

news:hsj8v2$in0$1@news.eternal-september.org...

 

>

 

> And the reason you think I care is?

 

>

 

> --

 

> Alias

 

 

 

Nobody cares what you think. You post ill informed opinions all the time.

 

That is why I need to correct your statements.

"Alias" wrote in message

 

news:hsjk7a$hp1$2@news.eternal-september.org...

 

>> Yes if you actually demonstrated the truth of anything I'd accept what

 

>> you said however you have yet to demonstrate a truth.

 

>>

 

>> You allege that Windows is more susceptible to malware then Linux but

 

>> other then your say so why should we believe you?

 

>>

 

>> It is for a very good reason that "hearsay" is not accepted as

 

>> evidence in a court of law. Why? It is too easy to prevaricate. A

 

>> charge that has been leveled against you many times.

 

>>

 

>> John B. Slocomb

 

>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

 

>

 

> Yawn.

 

>

 

> --

 

> Alias

 

 

 

Excellent response. How much time did you spend coming up with that?

 

 

 

LOL!

"Alias" wrote in message

 

news:hsjk8b$hp1$3@news.eternal-september.org...

 

> John B. Slocomb wrote:

 

>> On Fri, 14 May 2010 12:36:07 +0200, Alias

 

>> wrote:

 

>>

 

>>> Jackie wrote:

 

>>>> On 5/14/2010 03:06, John B. Slocomb wrote:

 

>>>>> Ah Jackie, you are learning about Alias. He posts some unsupported

 

>>>>> slander about Windows and when someone rebuts his post complete with

 

>>>>> quotes and references to demonstrate validity he replies with

 

>>>>> irrelevancies.

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>

 

>>>> It would be nice if he could actually try to back anything he says up

 

>>>> even he doesn't have any reliable references, because it really is like

 

>>>> you say. Technical details would be good so that we can see if it even

 

>>>> sounds logical or not.

 

>>>>

 

>>>

 

>>> OR, you could do your own research and see if what I am saying is true.

 

>>> What is it about you Windows users that makes you think everyone has to

 

>>> prove to you what they say is true?

 

>>

 

>> I suppose because most of us prefer not to be lied to. If you

 

>> don't/can't prove it how do we know that you aren't deliberately

 

>> lying? And after you display your ignorance of computers a few times

 

>> it is very difficult to accept that you know anything at all. Another

 

>> reason is because many people are naturally polite and dislike saying

 

>> "You are a liar" so instead that say something like "can you prove

 

>> it?"

 

>>

 

>> And I don't believe that it is confined to Windows users, I doubt that

 

>> many actually like to be lied to.

 

>>

 

>> John B. Slocomb

 

>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

 

>

 

> Double yawn.

 

>

 

> --

 

> Alias

 

 

 

You seem tired. Better smoke another BOWL.

On 05/14/2010 02:55 PM, Man-wai Chang to The Door (33600bps) wrote:

 

>>> And running softwares developped [sic] for Windows.

 

>> Yeah, like malware.

 

>

 

> No.. DirectX 3D games and HDTV viewer! :)

 

>

 

 

 

So what?

 

 

 

--

 

 

 

Alias

On Thu, 13 May 2010 17:53:03 -0700, Frank wrote:

 

 

> On 5/13/2010 5:16 PM, bill wrote:

 

>> On Thu, 13 May 2010 00:02:45 +0000, ray wrote:

 

>>

 

>>> On Wed, 12 May 2010 19:16:44 -0600, no_one wrote:

 

>> snip

 

>>>

 

>>> If you find you need assistance, which you most likely won't, just

 

>>> holler. I'm partial to Debian myself.

 

>>

 

>> Thanks Ray. I did the deed any this comes to you from, dare I say it?

 

>> Ubuntu. So far all is well. Even found the software to run my weather

 

>> station. Got a lot of work ahead to get it all sorted out and running

 

>> my way.

 

>>

 

>>

 

> Lets us know how well Quattro Pro is running on your new os.

 

 

 

It should run perfectly well via WINE - but OpenOffice is included, so

 

why sweat?

"ray" wrote in message

 

news:85576fFbucU41@mid.individual.net...

 

> On Thu, 13 May 2010 17:53:03 -0700, Frank wrote:

 

>

 

>> On 5/13/2010 5:16 PM, bill wrote:

 

>>> On Thu, 13 May 2010 00:02:45 +0000, ray wrote:

 

>>>

 

>>>> On Wed, 12 May 2010 19:16:44 -0600, no_one wrote:

 

>>> snip

 

>>>>

 

>>>> If you find you need assistance, which you most likely won't, just

 

>>>> holler. I'm partial to Debian myself.

 

>>>

 

>>> Thanks Ray. I did the deed any this comes to you from, dare I say it?

 

>>> Ubuntu. So far all is well. Even found the software to run my weather

 

>>> station. Got a lot of work ahead to get it all sorted out and running

 

>>> my way.

 

>>>

 

>>>

 

>> Lets us know how well Quattro Pro is running on your new os.

 

>

 

> It should run perfectly well via WINE - but OpenOffice is included, so

 

> why sweat?

 

 

 

Who the hell wants to run Windows applications in Ubuntu and who the hell

 

would want to run them under WHINE? If you need Microsoft applications, and

 

most people want MS apps, then use Windows. No need to use that INFERIOR

 

Ubuntu that nobody wants.

 

 

 

Ubuntu was written by geeks for geeks who can't get laid.

"Alias" wrote in message

 

news:hsjodi$p72$1@news.eternal-september.org...

 

> On 05/14/2010 02:55 PM, Man-wai Chang to The Door (33600bps) wrote:

 

>>>> And running softwares developped [sic] for Windows.

 

>>> Yeah, like malware.

 

>>

 

>> No.. DirectX 3D games and HDTV viewer! :)

 

>>

 

>

 

> So what?

 

>

 

 

 

Shouldn't you go to the Ubuntu forums and help out those sorry sacks who

 

believe they have a decent OS when in reality they have SHIT?

On Fri, 14 May 2010 09:10:18 -0700, Heywood Jablowme wrote:

 

 

> "ray" wrote in message

 

> news:85576fFbucU41@mid.individual.net...

 

>> On Thu, 13 May 2010 17:53:03 -0700, Frank wrote:

 

>>

 

>>> On 5/13/2010 5:16 PM, bill wrote:

 

>>>> On Thu, 13 May 2010 00:02:45 +0000, ray wrote:

 

>>>>

 

>>>>> On Wed, 12 May 2010 19:16:44 -0600, no_one wrote:

 

>>>> snip

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>> If you find you need assistance, which you most likely won't, just

 

>>>>> holler. I'm partial to Debian myself.

 

>>>>

 

>>>> Thanks Ray. I did the deed any this comes to you from, dare I say

 

>>>> it? Ubuntu. So far all is well. Even found the software to run my

 

>>>> weather station. Got a lot of work ahead to get it all sorted out

 

>>>> and running my way.

 

>>>>

 

>>>>

 

>>> Lets us know how well Quattro Pro is running on your new os.

 

>>

 

>> It should run perfectly well via WINE - but OpenOffice is included, so

 

>> why sweat?

 

>

 

> Who the hell wants to run Windows applications in Ubuntu and who the

 

> hell would want to run them under WHINE? If you need Microsoft

 

> applications, and most people want MS apps, then use Windows. No need

 

> to use that INFERIOR Ubuntu that nobody wants.

 

 

 

I note that you did NOT indicate that most people NEED ms apps - only

 

that they WANT them. Actually, that's not quite correct either. Most

 

folks want an app - they could not care less if it's an MS app or not -

 

the NEED functionality - and mostly they don't KNOW about anything else -

 

that's all. So instead of running that INFERIOR Ubuntu, they run that

 

INFERIOR MS - big friggin' deal. No modern OS is what it should be, but,

 

IMHO, Linux comes a lot closer than MS.

 

 

>

 

> Ubuntu was written by geeks for geeks who can't get laid.

 

 

 

Such an obviously ignorant statement requires no comment.

ray wrote:

 

> On Fri, 14 May 2010 09:10:18 -0700, Heywood Jablowme wrote:

 

>

 

>> "ray" wrote in message

 

>> news:85576fFbucU41@mid.individual.net...

 

>>> On Thu, 13 May 2010 17:53:03 -0700, Frank wrote:

 

>>>

 

>>>> On 5/13/2010 5:16 PM, bill wrote:

 

>>>>> On Thu, 13 May 2010 00:02:45 +0000, ray wrote:

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>>> On Wed, 12 May 2010 19:16:44 -0600, no_one wrote:

 

>>>>> snip

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>> If you find you need assistance, which you most likely won't, just

 

>>>>>> holler. I'm partial to Debian myself.

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>> Thanks Ray. I did the deed any this comes to you from, dare I say

 

>>>>> it? Ubuntu. So far all is well. Even found the software to run my

 

>>>>> weather station. Got a lot of work ahead to get it all sorted out

 

>>>>> and running my way.

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>>

 

>>>> Lets us know how well Quattro Pro is running on your new os.

 

>>>

 

>>> It should run perfectly well via WINE - but OpenOffice is included, so

 

>>> why sweat?

 

>>

 

>> Who the hell wants to run Windows applications in Ubuntu and who the

 

>> hell would want to run them under WHINE? If you need Microsoft

 

>> applications, and most people want MS apps, then use Windows. No need

 

>> to use that INFERIOR Ubuntu that nobody wants.

 

>

 

> I note that you did NOT indicate that most people NEED ms apps - only

 

> that they WANT them. Actually, that's not quite correct either. Most

 

> folks want an app - they could not care less if it's an MS app or not -

 

> the NEED functionality - and mostly they don't KNOW about anything else -

 

> that's all. So instead of running that INFERIOR Ubuntu, they run that

 

> INFERIOR MS - big friggin' deal. No modern OS is what it should be, but,

 

> IMHO, Linux comes a lot closer than MS.

 

>

 

>>

 

>> Ubuntu was written by geeks for geeks who can't get laid.

 

>

 

> Such an obviously ignorant statement requires no comment.

 

 

 

Here's what most home users use a computer for:

 

 

 

1. Email

 

 

 

2. Surfing the web

 

 

 

3. IMing

 

 

 

4. Photos.

 

 

 

5. Downloading audio and video

 

 

 

6. Playing music or watching a video

 

 

 

And that's about it. Ubuntu will fit their needs and wants perfectly.

 

 

 

--

 

Alias

On 5/14/2010 18:10, Heywood Jablowme wrote:

 

 

> Who the hell wants to run Windows applications in Ubuntu and who the

 

> hell would want to run them under WHINE? If you need Microsoft

 

> applications, and most people want MS apps, then use Windows. No need to

 

> use that INFERIOR Ubuntu that nobody wants.

 

>

 

> Ubuntu was written by geeks for geeks who can't get laid.

 

>

 

 

 

Having *options* is a very good thing.

 

 

 

It can be nice if you want to use Ubuntu and you actually have that

 

option to use them via an emulator (Wine, CXGames, Cedega).

 

 

 

Having used Windows since Windows 95 up until present version and not

 

much Linux, I wouldn't exactly say that Ubuntu is bad. Overall, I

 

personally feel that Windows is more complete. But... Windows still

 

lacks essential features that Ubuntu has pre-installed. I, for one,

 

think that finding and installing applications and the best drivers

 

could (and should) be easier in Windows. There's a potential solution

 

for this if you could gather developers and their products into one

 

place. There were no good solution in Windows as early as in (most?)

 

Linux distros (and still not now). I believe that is why applications

 

for Windows are so spread without a good, easy, built-in way to find,

 

browse and install them from one single place.

Jackie wrote:

 

> On 5/14/2010 18:10, Heywood Jablowme wrote:

 

>

 

>> Who the hell wants to run Windows applications in Ubuntu and who the

 

>> hell would want to run them under WHINE? If you need Microsoft

 

>> applications, and most people want MS apps, then use Windows. No need to

 

>> use that INFERIOR Ubuntu that nobody wants.

 

>>

 

>> Ubuntu was written by geeks for geeks who can't get laid.

 

>>

 

>

 

> Having *options* is a very good thing.

 

>

 

> It can be nice if you want to use Ubuntu and you actually have that

 

> option to use them via an emulator (Wine, CXGames, Cedega).

 

>

 

> Having used Windows since Windows 95 up until present version and not

 

> much Linux, I wouldn't exactly say that Ubuntu is bad. Overall, I

 

> personally feel that Windows is more complete. But... Windows still

 

> lacks essential features that Ubuntu has pre-installed. I, for one,

 

> think that finding and installing applications and the best drivers

 

> could (and should) be easier in Windows. There's a potential solution

 

> for this if you could gather developers and their products into one

 

> place. There were no good solution in Windows as early as in (most?)

 

> Linux distros (and still not now). I believe that is why applications

 

> for Windows are so spread without a good, easy, built-in way to find,

 

> browse and install them from one single place.

 

 

 

And know that what you're installing isn't malware.

 

 

 

--

 

Alias

On 5/14/2010 8:05 AM, ray wrote:

 

> On Thu, 13 May 2010 17:53:03 -0700, Frank wrote:

 

>

 

>> On 5/13/2010 5:16 PM, bill wrote:

 

>>> On Thu, 13 May 2010 00:02:45 +0000, ray wrote:

 

>>>

 

>>>> On Wed, 12 May 2010 19:16:44 -0600, no_one wrote:

 

>>> snip

 

>>>>

 

>>>> If you find you need assistance, which you most likely won't, just

 

>>>> holler. I'm partial to Debian myself.

 

>>>

 

>>> Thanks Ray. I did the deed any this comes to you from, dare I say it?

 

>>> Ubuntu. So far all is well. Even found the software to run my weather

 

>>> station. Got a lot of work ahead to get it all sorted out and running

 

>>> my way.

 

>>>

 

>>>

 

>> Lets us know how well Quattro Pro is running on your new os.

 

>

 

> It should run perfectly well via WINE - but OpenOffice is included, so

 

> why sweat?

 

 

 

Uhhh...maybe because that was his original complaint?

On 5/14/2010 9:40 AM, Alias wrote:

 

> ray wrote:

 

>> On Fri, 14 May 2010 09:10:18 -0700, Heywood Jablowme wrote:

 

>>

 

>>> "ray" wrote in message

 

>>> news:85576fFbucU41@mid.individual.net...

 

>>>> On Thu, 13 May 2010 17:53:03 -0700, Frank wrote:

 

>>>>

 

>>>>> On 5/13/2010 5:16 PM, bill wrote:

 

>>>>>> On Thu, 13 May 2010 00:02:45 +0000, ray wrote:

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>> On Wed, 12 May 2010 19:16:44 -0600, no_one wrote:

 

>>>>>> snip

 

>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>> If you find you need assistance, which you most likely won't, just

 

>>>>>>> holler. I'm partial to Debian myself.

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>> Thanks Ray. I did the deed any this comes to you from, dare I say

 

>>>>>> it? Ubuntu. So far all is well. Even found the software to run my

 

>>>>>> weather station. Got a lot of work ahead to get it all sorted out

 

>>>>>> and running my way.

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>> Lets us know how well Quattro Pro is running on your new os.

 

>>>>

 

>>>> It should run perfectly well via WINE - but OpenOffice is included, so

 

>>>> why sweat?

 

>>>

 

>>> Who the hell wants to run Windows applications in Ubuntu and who the

 

>>> hell would want to run them under WHINE? If you need Microsoft

 

>>> applications, and most people want MS apps, then use Windows. No need

 

>>> to use that INFERIOR Ubuntu that nobody wants.

 

>>

 

>> I note that you did NOT indicate that most people NEED ms apps - only

 

>> that they WANT them. Actually, that's not quite correct either. Most

 

>> folks want an app - they could not care less if it's an MS app or not -

 

>> the NEED functionality - and mostly they don't KNOW about anything else -

 

>> that's all. So instead of running that INFERIOR Ubuntu, they run that

 

>> INFERIOR MS - big friggin' deal. No modern OS is what it should be, but,

 

>> IMHO, Linux comes a lot closer than MS.

 

>>

 

>>>

 

>>> Ubuntu was written by geeks for geeks who can't get laid.

 

>>

 

>> Such an obviously ignorant statement requires no comment.

 

>

 

> Here's what most home users use a computer for:

 

>

 

> 1. Email

 

>

 

> 2. Surfing the web

 

>

 

> 3. IMing

 

>

 

> 4. Photos.

 

>

 

> 5. Downloading audio and video

 

>

 

> 6. Playing music or watching a video

 

>

 

> And that's about it. Ubuntu will fit their needs and wants perfectly.

 

>

 

Try reading the OP's comment and you'll see that none of the above was

 

mentioned by the him.

 

He wants to run Corel's Quattro Pro which is a spread sheet app like Excel.

On 5/14/2010 10:12 AM, Alias wrote:

 

> Jackie wrote:

 

>> On 5/14/2010 18:10, Heywood Jablowme wrote:

 

>>

 

>>> Who the hell wants to run Windows applications in Ubuntu and who the

 

>>> hell would want to run them under WHINE? If you need Microsoft

 

>>> applications, and most people want MS apps, then use Windows. No need to

 

>>> use that INFERIOR Ubuntu that nobody wants.

 

>>>

 

>>> Ubuntu was written by geeks for geeks who can't get laid.

 

>>>

 

>>

 

>> Having *options* is a very good thing.

 

>>

 

>> It can be nice if you want to use Ubuntu and you actually have that

 

>> option to use them via an emulator (Wine, CXGames, Cedega).

 

>>

 

>> Having used Windows since Windows 95 up until present version and not

 

>> much Linux, I wouldn't exactly say that Ubuntu is bad. Overall, I

 

>> personally feel that Windows is more complete. But... Windows still

 

>> lacks essential features that Ubuntu has pre-installed. I, for one,

 

>> think that finding and installing applications and the best drivers

 

>> could (and should) be easier in Windows. There's a potential solution

 

>> for this if you could gather developers and their products into one

 

>> place. There were no good solution in Windows as early as in (most?)

 

>> Linux distros (and still not now). I believe that is why applications

 

>> for Windows are so spread without a good, easy, built-in way to find,

 

>> browse and install them from one single place.

 

>

 

> And know that what you're installing isn't malware.

 

>

 

You do? That is not really true, as noted by ubuntu advocates themselves.

 

You just can't stop your lying, can you.

On 5/14/2010 3:34 AM, Alias wrote:

 

> John B. Slocomb wrote:

 

>> On Thu, 13 May 2010 15:30:27 +0200, Alias

 

>> wrote:

 

>>

 

>>> Jackie wrote:

 

>>>> On 5/13/2010 14:48, Alias wrote:

 

>>>>> Nor do I. I use both Windows and Linux.

 

>>>> Do you have anything to say about the other things I said? You quoted

 

>>>> everything in my post.

 

>>>

 

>>> I suspect that Windows is targeted because of various reasons. Windows

 

>>> is easier to exploit and Windows users are usually less tech savvy than

 

>>> Linux users. All they have to do is click on the wrong advertisement in

 

>>> Facebook and they're hosed. The same wrong ad wouldn't affect Linux.

 

>>

 

>> I don't believe that is a valid statement.

 

>

 

> And the reason you think I care is?

 

>

 

You bothered to respond? You're rather stupid and slow on the uptake

 

aren't you.

On 5/14/2010 3:36 AM, Alias wrote:

 

> Jackie wrote:

 

>> On 5/14/2010 03:06, John B. Slocomb wrote:

 

>>> Ah Jackie, you are learning about Alias. He posts some unsupported

 

>>> slander about Windows and when someone rebuts his post complete with

 

>>> quotes and references to demonstrate validity he replies with

 

>>> irrelevancies.

 

>>>

 

>>

 

>> It would be nice if he could actually try to back anything he says up

 

>> even he doesn't have any reliable references, because it really is like

 

>> you say. Technical details would be good so that we can see if it even

 

>> sounds logical or not.

 

>>

 

>

 

> OR, you could do your own research and see if what I am saying is true.

 

 

 

Translation: alias was caught lying...again...as usual.

 

 

> What is it about you Windows users that makes you think everyone has to

 

> prove to you what they say is true?

 

 

 

You are a known and admitted LIAR, LIAR!

why is this jerk alias even here?

 

On 5/14/2010 5:17 AM, Alias wrote:

 

> Death wrote:

 

>> Alias wrote:

 

>>

 

>>> Death wrote:

 

>>

 

>> SNIP

 

>>

 

>>>>>> You're a Windows user, dumbass.

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>> So are you. I have stated many times that I use both. So fucking what?

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>

 

>>>> Read your previous remark...the one I replied to.

 

>>>> You said "you Windows users" ... are you daft?

 

>>>

 

>>> You knew what I meant but you're desperate to put me down anyway you

 

>>> can. Why is the question.

 

>>>

 

>>

 

>> I rarely know what you "meant".

 

>> Only your psychiatrist knows for sure.

 

>>

 

>>>>

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>> Tell them how you make $14,000 /week.

 

>>>>>> That will give you at least a little credibility.

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>> That ubuntu is based on gnome was hilarious.

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>> You really are desperate to find *something* to put me down with,

 

>>>>> why is

 

>>>>> that? Is it because you're an asshole or are you jealous?

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>

 

>>>> Yes...I'm jealous of your gnome based ubuntard installation.

 

>>>

 

>>> Gosh, I made a mistake. What do you suggest, a lynching for those who

 

>>> make mistakes here or what?

 

>>>

 

>>

 

>> No, I just suspect you are as incorrect with your assertions and claims

 

>> made against Windows.

 

>>

 

>>>>

 

>>>> Fedora must be based on KDE...since I use KDE as my DE.

 

>>>>

 

>>>

 

>>> Another who thinks he's perfect. It must be lonely being you.

 

>>>

 

>>

 

>> Nope...stop projecting your life into mine.

 

>> Most of my friends couldn't care less about linux.

 

>>

 

>

 

> All two of them, eh?

 

>

 

Why are you here?

On 5/14/2010 4:13 AM, Alias wrote:

 

> Jackie wrote:

 

>> On 5/14/2010 12:36, Alias wrote:

 

>>>> It would be nice if he could actually try to back anything he says up

 

>>>> even he doesn't have any reliable references, because it really is like

 

>>>> you say. Technical details would be good so that we can see if it even

 

>>>> sounds logical or not.

 

>>>>

 

>>>

 

>>> OR, you could do your own research and see if what I am saying is true.

 

>>> What is it about you Windows users that makes you think everyone has to

 

>>> prove to you what they say is true?

 

>>>

 

>>

 

>> Unfortunately, this is getting a bit ridiculous.

 

>> Facts are either true or false. I have said my part on why I believe

 

>> what I believe. I don't feel that you have contributed much.

 

>> If you feel that I am wrong, please enlighten me. If you don't want to

 

>> bother convincing me and other people on why we are wrong, I suggest we

 

>> stop talking about this because the conversation is already starting to

 

>> become meaningless.

 

>> If you have read my previous posts, does it really sound like I need to

 

>> "do my own research"? What part of what you *you* say sounds even

 

>> slightly convincing?

 

>> You can believe whatever you want to believe, but if you do not have any

 

>> intention on enlightening us, let's end this conversation right now.

 

>

 

> Regardless of any proof I may give, you and John won't believe me anyway

 

> so what's the point?

 

>

 

> If I have to prove that Windows is vulnerable to malware and Linux is

 

> much more secure to you guys, then doing so is a futile endeavor and I'm

 

> not into futile endeavors.

 

>

 

Why don't you just STFU and get lost. It's should be obvious, even to a

 

dim-witted loser like you, that you are not wanted in this ng.

On 5/14/2010 6:45 AM, Alias wrote:

 

> Jackie wrote:

 

>> On 5/14/2010 13:13, Alias wrote:

 

>>> If I have to prove that Windows is vulnerable to malware and Linux is

 

>>> much more secure to you guys, then doing so is a futile endeavor and I'm

 

>>> not into futile endeavors.

 

>>>

 

>>

 

>> That is a very general statement compared to ones you have previously

 

>> given. For example, you gave a statements such as "If you click on an ad

 

>> laced with malware, you're giving it permission to run" and "there is

 

>> malware that has developed the ability to fool ALL anti virus/malware

 

>> apps and UAC". If you didn't see my response to this, please do that.

 

>>

 

>> Now, to answer your general statement...

 

>> For malicious apps to cause any damage to the system, it must be

 

>> elevated. I have already responded about the link you gave about

 

>> bypassing AV software

 

>> (http://www.h-online.com/security/news/item/New-attack-bypasses-anti-virus-software-997621.html).

 

>>

 

>>

 

>>

 

>> In pre-release versions of Windows 7, it was possible for a malicious

 

>> application to take advantage of the automatic elevation option in

 

>> Windows 7. I do not know if this was fixed in the final version.

 

>> http://www.withinwindows.com/2009/02/04/windows-7-auto-elevation-mistake-lets-malware-elevate-freely-easily/

 

>>

 

>>

 

>> This feature is not present in Ubuntu, and you *can* turn it off in

 

>> Windows 7. That means it can no longer be taken advantage of.

 

>>

 

>> Of course, a malicious app could mess up your personal files that you

 

>> always have full access to, but that applies for Linux as well.

 

>>

 

>> Ubuntu has AppArmor installed by default. This is a an access control

 

>> system developed by Novell.

 

>> You can read more about it here:

 

>> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/AppArmor

 

>>

 

>> Unfortunately, Windows does not have that installed by default, but you

 

>> can get similar solutions. I said earlier that I used Outpost Firewall

 

>> Pro 2009 that has a "Host protection" feature that provides a pretty

 

>> good amount of access control (like I mentioned in an earlier post). I

 

>> also use Sandboxie to run certain applications with limited resources.

 

>> http://www.sandboxie.com/

 

>>

 

>> Such solutions giving such great amount of control are not already

 

>> pre-installed and/or very well integrated with Windows.

 

>> Considering that a similar solution is pre-installed in Ubuntu and does

 

>> not cost anything, I would say that it is indeed unfortunate for Windows.

 

>

 

> Most people who use Windows don't update hardly anything.

 

 

 

You know this because...?

 

 

 

Techies can

 

> secure a Windows install but, like you said, with Ubuntu, it's installed

 

> securely by default.

 

>

 

 

 

You are proving to everyone that you are indeed stupid!

On 5/14/2010 6:46 AM, Alias wrote:

 

> John B. Slocomb wrote:

 

>> On Fri, 14 May 2010 12:36:07 +0200, Alias

 

>> wrote:

 

>>

 

>>> Jackie wrote:

 

>>>> On 5/14/2010 03:06, John B. Slocomb wrote:

 

>>>>> Ah Jackie, you are learning about Alias. He posts some unsupported

 

>>>>> slander about Windows and when someone rebuts his post complete with

 

>>>>> quotes and references to demonstrate validity he replies with

 

>>>>> irrelevancies.

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>

 

>>>> It would be nice if he could actually try to back anything he says up

 

>>>> even he doesn't have any reliable references, because it really is like

 

>>>> you say. Technical details would be good so that we can see if it even

 

>>>> sounds logical or not.

 

>>>>

 

>>>

 

>>> OR, you could do your own research and see if what I am saying is true.

 

>>> What is it about you Windows users that makes you think everyone has to

 

>>> prove to you what they say is true?

 

>>

 

>> I suppose because most of us prefer not to be lied to. If you

 

>> don't/can't prove it how do we know that you aren't deliberately

 

>> lying? And after you display your ignorance of computers a few times

 

>> it is very difficult to accept that you know anything at all. Another

 

>> reason is because many people are naturally polite and dislike saying

 

>> "You are a liar" so instead that say something like "can you prove

 

>> it?"

 

>>

 

>> And I don't believe that it is confined to Windows users, I doubt that

 

>> many actually like to be lied to.

 

>>

 

>> John B. Slocomb

 

>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

 

>

 

> Double yawn.

 

>

 

hehehe...nice response from someone getting their ass kicked!...LOL!

"Jackie" wrote in message

 

news:4bed8007$0$21027$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...

 

> On 5/14/2010 18:10, Heywood Jablowme wrote:

 

>

 

>> Who the hell wants to run Windows applications in Ubuntu and who the

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jackie, you've responded to every troll in this newsgroup, subjecting

 

everyone who has them plonked, to have to read their garbage.

 

Congratulations! Now you can join them in the plonk box. The only thing

 

worse than a troll is an asshole who feeds them.

 

--

 

 

 

 

 

"Don't pick a fight with an old man.

 

If he is too old to fight, he'll just kill you."