John B. Slocomb wrote:

 

>

 

> IT Facts

 

> Alex Moskalyuk

 

>

 

> Home / News& Blogs / IT Facts

 

> Linux servers hacked more frequently than Windows

 

>

 

> By ZDNet Research | February 19, 2004, 8:21am PST

 

> Summary

 

> A more specific analysis of government servers also found Linux more

 

> susceptible, accounting for 57% of all breaches. The research did not

 

> include other methods of intrusion such as viruses and worms.

 

>

 

> John B. Slocomb

 

> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

 

 

 

Six year old article that is obviously biased. You *really* are desperate.

 

--

 

Alias

Tony Yarwood wrote:

 

>

 

> On Sun, 16 May 2010 17:03:43 +0200, Alias

 

> wrote:

 

>

 

>> On 05/16/2010 02:48 PM, Tony Yarwood wrote:

 

>>>

 

>>> On Sun, 16 May 2010 09:33:41 +0700, John B. Slocomb

 

>>> wrote:

 

>>>

 

>>>

 

>>>> I agree, at the moment. The point that I was trying to make is that if

 

>>>> Linux ever gains a dominant position in the computer world that the

 

>>>> amount of Linux mal-ware will increase proportionally.

 

>>>>

 

>>> Root kits were originally designed for Unix systems.

 

>>>

 

>>> Best regards

 

>>>

 

>>> Tony

 

>>

 

>> Yet there are only used on Windows boxes.

 

>

 

> You're knowledge is about as bad as your English.

 

>

 

> Best regards

 

>

 

> Tony

 

>

 

> Google ain't your friend.

 

> More privacy, no tracking.

 

> http://clusty.com/

 

>

 

> I block all posts from googlegroups. If you wish your thoughts

 

> to be seen by everyone you'll have to find a different method of

 

> posting.

 

 

 

Gosh you caught a typo. Do you think you've earn a gold star on your

 

forehead?

 

 

 

--

 

Alias

John B. Slocomb wrote:

 

> On Sun, 16 May 2010 17:03:43 +0200, Alias

 

> wrote:

 

>

 

>> On 05/16/2010 02:48 PM, Tony Yarwood wrote:

 

>>>

 

>>> On Sun, 16 May 2010 09:33:41 +0700, John B. Slocomb

 

>>> wrote:

 

>>>

 

>>>

 

>>>> I agree, at the moment. The point that I was trying to make is that if

 

>>>> Linux ever gains a dominant position in the computer world that the

 

>>>> amount of Linux mal-ware will increase proportionally.

 

>>>>

 

>>> Root kits were originally designed for Unix systems.

 

>>>

 

>>> Best regards

 

>>>

 

>>> Tony

 

>>

 

>> Yet there are only used on Windows boxes.

 

>

 

> First of all, it is "they're",

 

 

 

No shit. Ever hear of typos? Oh, I forgot, you're perfect and expect

 

everyone else to be the same or you will put them down until the

 

fucking cows come home.

 

 

> but ignoring that root-kits were used

 

> on Linux systems, after all, why else were they named "root-kits",

 

> that is a Unix/Linux term.

 

>

 

> John B. Slocomb

 

> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

 

 

 

It may be a Linux term but it's used extensively with Windows and much

 

more successfully than with Linux.

 

 

 

--

 

Alias

Bob I wrote in

 

news:D8SHn.11873$mi.8324@newsfe01.iad:

 

 

>

 

>

 

> On 5/15/2010 7:43 PM, DanS wrote:

 

>> Bob I wrote in

 

>> news:H6GHn.4871$yx.324@newsfe13.iad:

 

>>

 

>>> The reason that "Linux" isn't targeted is that there

 

>>> aren't enough installations to bother with. Lets face it,

 

>>> if the Mariposa botnet was counted as separate OS, it

 

>>> would have more users than Linux!

 

>>

 

>> You are confirming is that Windows is the imminent target

 

>> of spyware/malware writers ? (Which was the original point

 

>> of this thread branch.)

 

>>

 

>> It doesn't matter why. At this time, Windows is more

 

>> susceptible than Linux.

 

>

 

> Ah yes, the old "Security through Obscurity" ploy.

 

> Susceptible!=Vulnerable

 

 

 

What is obscure ?

 

 

 

Do the virii/malware/spyware writers not know that Linux

 

exists ?

 

 

 

These developers can't get their hands on a Liux distro to

 

experiment ?

"Death" wrote in

 

news:4befe126$1@news.x-privat.org:

 

 

>

 

> "DanS" wrote

 

> in message

 

> news:Xns9D7A5133FC03Cthisnthatroadrunnern@216.196.97.131...

 

>>>> It doesn't matter why. At this time, Windows is more

 

>>>> susceptible than Linux.

 

>>>

 

>>> People with money are more likely to be robbed.

 

>>> No duh...moron.

 

>>> Were you born stupid, or did a brick land in your brain

 

>>> cavity?

 

>>>

 

>>

 

>> And just so I'm completely clear, *you* have nothing

 

>> intelligent to say, so you just spit out insults and an

 

>> insinuation that Linux users are poor.

 

>>

 

>> ........you are a Linux user also.

 

>

On Mon, 17 May 2010 12:04:52 +0200, Alias

 

wrote:

 

 

>John B. Slocomb wrote:

 

>>

 

>> IT Facts

 

>> Alex Moskalyuk

 

>>

 

>> Home / News& Blogs / IT Facts

 

>> Linux servers hacked more frequently than Windows

 

>>

 

>> By ZDNet Research | February 19, 2004, 8:21am PST

 

>> Summary

 

>> A more specific analysis of government servers also found Linux more

 

>> susceptible, accounting for 57% of all breaches. The research did not

 

>> include other methods of intrusion such as viruses and worms.

 

>>

 

>> John B. Slocomb

 

>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

 

>

 

>Six year old article that is obviously biased. You *really* are desperate.

 

 

 

Are you saying that as of NOW the servers aren't being hacked into?

 

That the percentages have changed radically?

 

 

 

And as far as six year old articles you will notice that I carefully

 

included the date when I quoted it. Unlike you I'm not trying to pull

 

the wool over anyone's eyes.

 

 

 

John B. Slocomb

 

(johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

On Mon, 17 May 2010 12:08:39 +0200, Alias

 

wrote:

 

 

>John B. Slocomb wrote:

 

>> On Sun, 16 May 2010 17:03:43 +0200, Alias

 

>> wrote:

 

>>

 

>>> On 05/16/2010 02:48 PM, Tony Yarwood wrote:

 

>>>>

 

>>>> On Sun, 16 May 2010 09:33:41 +0700, John B. Slocomb

 

>>>> wrote:

 

>>>>

 

>>>>

 

>>>>> I agree, at the moment. The point that I was trying to make is that if

 

>>>>> Linux ever gains a dominant position in the computer world that the

 

>>>>> amount of Linux mal-ware will increase proportionally.

 

>>>>>

 

>>>> Root kits were originally designed for Unix systems.

 

>>>>

 

>>>> Best regards

 

>>>>

 

>>>> Tony

 

>>>

 

>>> Yet there are only used on Windows boxes.

 

>>

 

>> First of all, it is "they're",

 

>

 

>No shit. Ever hear of typos? Oh, I forgot, you're perfect and expect

 

>everyone else to be the same or you will put them down until the

 

>fucking cows come home.

 

 

 

A typo? Actually it was the third of your posts that I noticed the

 

same typo in...

 

 

>

 

>> but ignoring that root-kits were used

 

>> on Linux systems, after all, why else were they named "root-kits",

 

>> that is a Unix/Linux term.

 

>>

 

>> John B. Slocomb

 

>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

 

>

 

>It may be a Linux term but it's used extensively with Windows and much

 

>more successfully than with Linux.

 

 

 

Actually it was a Unix term and taken over by every system that uses

 

more then one directory.

 

John B. Slocomb

 

(johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

On Mon, 17 May 2010 13:47:05 +0700, John B. Slocomb

 

wrote:

 

 

>On Sun, 16 May 2010 13:40:46 +0200, Alias

 

> wrote:

 

>

 

>>John B. Slocomb wrote:

 

>>> On Sun, 16 May 2010 12:15:17 +0200, Alias

 

>>> wrote:

 

>>>

 

>>>> On 05/16/2010 04:03 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:

 

>>>>> On Sat, 15 May 2010 16:02:52 +0200, Alias

 

>>>>> wrote:

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>>> John B. Slocomb wrote:

 

>>>>>>> On Sat, 15 May 2010 13:18:44 +0200, Alias

 

>>>>>>> wrote:

 

>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>> On 05/15/2010 05:40 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:

 

>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 14 May 2010 18:53:28 +0200, 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.

 

>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>> I think that one of the reasons for the "Oh! Linux can do anything

 

>>>>>>>>> that Windows can" fiction is that most of the people using either

 

>>>>>>>>> system aren't using it professionally.

 

>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>> One of the major reasons is that the vast majority of the business

 

>>>>>>>>> world uses Windows and the associated applications. If you do a job

 

>>>>>>>>> for most companies you will run head on into the fact that your Linux

 

>>>>>>>>> system doesn't match their Windows.

 

>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>> Almost every project I have been on used Auto-Cad and during

 

>>>>>>>>> construction of a project there are innumerable changes in the

 

>>>>>>>>> drawings. The normal practice is to e-mail complete drawings back and

 

>>>>>>>>> forth between the Engineering Office and the Field. Up-dated drawing

 

>>>>>>>>> going out to the Field and marked up drawings showing the "As-builts"

 

>>>>>>>>> sent back.

 

>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>> Frequently if one writes a report the company will request that both a

 

>>>>>>>>> printed report and a disk copy be furnished, particularly if any form

 

>>>>>>>>> of legal problems are anticipated. And, with extremely rare exceptions

 

>>>>>>>>> they want the disks in "Word format".

 

>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>> It is all well and good to say "Well, Open Office can do the job", but

 

>>>>>>>>> if you deliver a Linux formatted disk with a OO document on it you

 

>>>>>>>>> will probably be told in no uncertain terms that it is not what you

 

>>>>>>>>> contracted to do.

 

>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>> Of course Auto-Cad will run on Linux using Wine but how big a data

 

>>>>>>>>> file can it handle? Are you sure that it can edit the largest drawing

 

>>>>>>>>> that the Engineers want to send? If you are out in the middle of a 100

 

>>>>>>>>> Sq. Km. sugar cane plantation in the middle of Java building a gas

 

>>>>>>>>> plant for the National Oil Company it is not really a good time to

 

>>>>>>>>> discover that you can't do your job because Linux won't do it.

 

>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>> No, as long as windows is the dominant computer operating system Linux

 

>>>>>>>>> is never going to be a wholly acceptable system..

 

>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>> John B. Slocomb

 

>>>>>>>>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

 

>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>> You're right. Some things can only be done with Windows, at least for

 

>>>>>>>> now. My point is that most HOME USERS can do everything they do with

 

>>>>>>>> Windows but more securely if they use Ubuntu or another Linux distro.

 

>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>> I just installed Fedora 13 (beta) on my Granddaughter's game computer

 

>>>>>>> - dual boot, Win 7 and Fedora - and set up Clamav to do periodic virus

 

>>>>>>> scans on the Linux partition. Thought I'd give the kid a fighting

 

>>>>>>> chance so changed things around a bit so that Linux could see the

 

>>>>>>> windows directory and set up Clamav to scan that partition too.

 

>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>> This is a machine that a 7 year old girl uses and has the installed

 

>>>>>>> Win 7 firewall and whatever they call it that won't let you run a

 

>>>>>>> program without clicking on yet another permission box. Probably not

 

>>>>>>> earth shaking protection.

 

>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>> Results - no virus.

 

>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>> Actually, I have had one serious virus in something like 20 years and

 

>>>>>>> I got that one from a bootleg copied disk. I use a firewall and do

 

>>>>>>> periodic virus scans but frankly I have never had a problem with

 

>>>>>>> mal-ware or virus that effected the operations of the computer.

 

>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>> My own suspicions are that these people who have massive problems with

 

>>>>>>> mal-ware or virus are very likely not using a decent firewall or are

 

>>>>>>> downloading a lot of porn and warz.

 

>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>> John B. Slocomb

 

>>>>>>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>> You're forgetting about not updating Windows, Java, Flash, etc. as

 

>>>>>> causes. That's the beautiful thing about Linux: the updates update

 

>>>>>> everything you have installed if you configure it properly. Once I had

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>> That sounds quite modern - automatic updates. Of course Windows offers

 

>>>>> that service, if you want it.

 

>>>>> However I consider it a bit risky as at least twice I have updated

 

>>>>> Linux and in one case OpenOffice stopped running and in another the

 

>>>>> Nvidia display stopped working.

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>> Hardly the miracle that you represent it to be.

 

>>>>

 

>>>> Not my experience and you are expecting me to believe you without any

 

>>>> proof? Can you say "hypocrite"?

 

>>>>

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>>> to clean up an XP machine that had never been defragged (customer:

 

>>>>>> what's that?) or updated (customer: what's that?). It took over ten

 

>>>>>> minutes to boot up and once it booted, pop up Windows had a fucking

 

>>>>>> field day. I ended up reinstalling XP because there was just too much

 

>>>>>> malware to deal with and there was no guarantee that the AV and other

 

>>>>>> anti malware programs would completely remove all malware.

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>> You seem to be talking about three different things here. (1),

 

>>>>> updating software (2), de fragmenting a disk and (3), mal-ware. None

 

>>>>> of which have any relationship to the other.

 

>>>>

 

>>>> I was giving an example of a Windows box that wasn't updated and what

 

>>>> happens to Windows boxes that don't update. The lack of defragging was

 

>>>> just another sign of how many home users "maintain" their computers.

 

>>>

 

>>> So not defraging the disk is a sign of an ignorant, lazy, Windows

 

>>> user?

 

>>

 

>>Ignorant, yes. Lazy, no.

 

>>

 

>>>

 

>>> So tell us oh Great and Omnipotent Ubuntu User how often do you

 

>>> defrag your Linux disks?

 

>>

 

>>Never.

 

>>

 

>>>

 

>>> If a failure to defrag a Windows disk is a mortal sin then it must be

 

>>> equally true for the Ubuntu User.

 

>>

 

>>No, it isn't.

 

>>

 

>>>

 

>>> John B. Slocomb

 

>>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

 

>>

 

>>You must have had 12 cups of coffee you're pissing so much.

 

>

 

>

 

>Gee, not de-fragging the disk is a mortal sin for the Windows user but

 

>the Linux users have some sort of dispensation and don't have to

 

>de-frag?

 

>

 

>Tell us more about this pseudo religion you seem to have invented.

 

>

 

>John B. Slocomb

 

>(johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

 

 

 

Alias, I am feeling very left out here. I asked you a legitimate

 

technical question and you failed to answer me. Like to take a shot at

 

explaining why you say that it is terrible when a Windows user doesn't

 

de-frag his disk but a Linux user doesn't need to de-frag his?

 

 

 

A little technical discussion to liven up the thread?

 

 

 

John B. Slocomb

 

(johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

John B. Slocomb wrote:

 

> On Mon, 17 May 2010 13:47:05 +0700, John B. Slocomb

 

> wrote:

 

>

 

>> On Sun, 16 May 2010 13:40:46 +0200, Alias

 

>> wrote:

 

>>

 

>>> John B. Slocomb wrote:

 

>>>> On Sun, 16 May 2010 12:15:17 +0200, Alias

 

>>>> wrote:

 

>>>>

 

>>>>> On 05/16/2010 04:03 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:

 

>>>>>> On Sat, 15 May 2010 16:02:52 +0200, Alias

 

>>>>>> wrote:

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>> John B. Slocomb wrote:

 

>>>>>>>> On Sat, 15 May 2010 13:18:44 +0200, Alias

 

>>>>>>>> wrote:

 

>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>> On 05/15/2010 05:40 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:

 

>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 14 May 2010 18:53:28 +0200, 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.

 

>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>> I think that one of the reasons for the "Oh! Linux can do anything

 

>>>>>>>>>> that Windows can" fiction is that most of the people using either

 

>>>>>>>>>> system aren't using it professionally.

 

>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>> One of the major reasons is that the vast majority of the business

 

>>>>>>>>>> world uses Windows and the associated applications. If you do a job

 

>>>>>>>>>> for most companies you will run head on into the fact that your Linux

 

>>>>>>>>>> system doesn't match their Windows.

 

>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>> Almost every project I have been on used Auto-Cad and during

 

>>>>>>>>>> construction of a project there are innumerable changes in the

 

>>>>>>>>>> drawings. The normal practice is to e-mail complete drawings back and

 

>>>>>>>>>> forth between the Engineering Office and the Field. Up-dated drawing

 

>>>>>>>>>> going out to the Field and marked up drawings showing the "As-builts"

 

>>>>>>>>>> sent back.

 

>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>> Frequently if one writes a report the company will request that both a

 

>>>>>>>>>> printed report and a disk copy be furnished, particularly if any form

 

>>>>>>>>>> of legal problems are anticipated. And, with extremely rare exceptions

 

>>>>>>>>>> they want the disks in "Word format".

 

>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>> It is all well and good to say "Well, Open Office can do the job", but

 

>>>>>>>>>> if you deliver a Linux formatted disk with a OO document on it you

 

>>>>>>>>>> will probably be told in no uncertain terms that it is not what you

 

>>>>>>>>>> contracted to do.

 

>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>> Of course Auto-Cad will run on Linux using Wine but how big a data

 

>>>>>>>>>> file can it handle? Are you sure that it can edit the largest drawing

 

>>>>>>>>>> that the Engineers want to send? If you are out in the middle of a 100

 

>>>>>>>>>> Sq. Km. sugar cane plantation in the middle of Java building a gas

 

>>>>>>>>>> plant for the National Oil Company it is not really a good time to

 

>>>>>>>>>> discover that you can't do your job because Linux won't do it.

 

>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>> No, as long as windows is the dominant computer operating system Linux

 

>>>>>>>>>> is never going to be a wholly acceptable system..

 

>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>> John B. Slocomb

 

>>>>>>>>>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

 

>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>> You're right. Some things can only be done with Windows, at least for

 

>>>>>>>>> now. My point is that most HOME USERS can do everything they do with

 

>>>>>>>>> Windows but more securely if they use Ubuntu or another Linux distro.

 

>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>> I just installed Fedora 13 (beta) on my Granddaughter's game computer

 

>>>>>>>> - dual boot, Win 7 and Fedora - and set up Clamav to do periodic virus

 

>>>>>>>> scans on the Linux partition. Thought I'd give the kid a fighting

 

>>>>>>>> chance so changed things around a bit so that Linux could see the

 

>>>>>>>> windows directory and set up Clamav to scan that partition too.

 

>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>> This is a machine that a 7 year old girl uses and has the installed

 

>>>>>>>> Win 7 firewall and whatever they call it that won't let you run a

 

>>>>>>>> program without clicking on yet another permission box. Probably not

 

>>>>>>>> earth shaking protection.

 

>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>> Results - no virus.

 

>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>> Actually, I have had one serious virus in something like 20 years and

 

>>>>>>>> I got that one from a bootleg copied disk. I use a firewall and do

 

>>>>>>>> periodic virus scans but frankly I have never had a problem with

 

>>>>>>>> mal-ware or virus that effected the operations of the computer.

 

>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>> My own suspicions are that these people who have massive problems with

 

>>>>>>>> mal-ware or virus are very likely not using a decent firewall or are

 

>>>>>>>> downloading a lot of porn and warz.

 

>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>> John B. Slocomb

 

>>>>>>>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

 

>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>> You're forgetting about not updating Windows, Java, Flash, etc. as

 

>>>>>>> causes. That's the beautiful thing about Linux: the updates update

 

>>>>>>> everything you have installed if you configure it properly. Once I had

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>> That sounds quite modern - automatic updates. Of course Windows offers

 

>>>>>> that service, if you want it.

 

>>>>>> However I consider it a bit risky as at least twice I have updated

 

>>>>>> Linux and in one case OpenOffice stopped running and in another the

 

>>>>>> Nvidia display stopped working.

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>> Hardly the miracle that you represent it to be.

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>> Not my experience and you are expecting me to believe you without any

 

>>>>> proof? Can you say "hypocrite"?

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>> to clean up an XP machine that had never been defragged (customer:

 

>>>>>>> what's that?) or updated (customer: what's that?). It took over ten

 

>>>>>>> minutes to boot up and once it booted, pop up Windows had a fucking

 

>>>>>>> field day. I ended up reinstalling XP because there was just too much

 

>>>>>>> malware to deal with and there was no guarantee that the AV and other

 

>>>>>>> anti malware programs would completely remove all malware.

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>> You seem to be talking about three different things here. (1),

 

>>>>>> updating software (2), de fragmenting a disk and (3), mal-ware. None

 

>>>>>> of which have any relationship to the other.

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>> I was giving an example of a Windows box that wasn't updated and what

 

>>>>> happens to Windows boxes that don't update. The lack of defragging was

 

>>>>> just another sign of how many home users "maintain" their computers.

 

>>>>

 

>>>> So not defraging the disk is a sign of an ignorant, lazy, Windows

 

>>>> user?

 

>>>

 

>>> Ignorant, yes. Lazy, no.

 

>>>

 

>>>>

 

>>>> So tell us oh Great and Omnipotent Ubuntu User how often do you

 

>>>> defrag your Linux disks?

 

>>>

 

>>> Never.

 

>>>

 

>>>>

 

>>>> If a failure to defrag a Windows disk is a mortal sin then it must be

 

>>>> equally true for the Ubuntu User.

 

>>>

 

>>> No, it isn't.

 

>>>

 

>>>>

 

>>>> John B. Slocomb

 

>>>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

 

>>>

 

>>> You must have had 12 cups of coffee you're pissing so much.

 

>>

 

>>

 

>> Gee, not de-fragging the disk is a mortal sin for the Windows user but

 

>> the Linux users have some sort of dispensation and don't have to

 

>> de-frag?

 

>>

 

>> Tell us more about this pseudo religion you seem to have invented.

 

>>

 

>> John B. Slocomb

 

>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

 

>

 

> Alias, I am feeling very left out here. I asked you a legitimate

 

> technical question and you failed to answer me. Like to take a shot at

 

> explaining why you say that it is terrible when a Windows user doesn't

 

> de-frag his disk but a Linux user doesn't need to de-frag his?

 

>

 

> A little technical discussion to liven up the thread?

 

>

 

> John B. Slocomb

 

> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

 

 

 

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_the_differences_between_Windows_and_Linux&alreadyAsked=1&rtitle=What_is_the_different_between_redhat_operating_system_and_windows_operating_system

 

 

 

http://polishlinux.org/linux/windows-vs-linux-architecture-part-i/

 

 

 

http://www.astahost.com/info.php/What39s-Difference-Linux-Unix33_t2124.html#Latest_Entry

 

 

 

http://geekblog.oneandoneis2.org/index.php/2006/08/17/why_doesn_t_linux_need_defragmenting

 

 

 

Need more?

 

 

 

Try using this: http://www.google.com/ and stop being such a twit.

 

 

 

--

 

Alias

On 5/17/2010 8:33 AM, Alias wrote:

 

> John B. Slocomb wrote:

 

>> On Mon, 17 May 2010 13:47:05 +0700, John B. Slocomb

 

>> wrote:

 

>>

 

>>> On Sun, 16 May 2010 13:40:46 +0200, Alias

 

>>> wrote:

 

>>>

 

>>>> John B. Slocomb wrote:

 

>>>>> On Sun, 16 May 2010 12:15:17 +0200, Alias

 

>>>>> wrote:

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>>> On 05/16/2010 04:03 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:

 

>>>>>>> On Sat, 15 May 2010 16:02:52 +0200, Alias

 

>>>>>>> wrote:

 

>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>> John B. Slocomb wrote:

 

>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 15 May 2010 13:18:44 +0200, Alias

 

>>>>>>>>> wrote:

 

>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>> On 05/15/2010 05:40 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:

 

>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 14 May 2010 18:53:28 +0200, 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.

 

>>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>>> I think that one of the reasons for the "Oh! Linux can do

 

>>>>>>>>>>> anything

 

>>>>>>>>>>> that Windows can" fiction is that most of the people using

 

>>>>>>>>>>> either

 

>>>>>>>>>>> system aren't using it professionally.

 

>>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>>> One of the major reasons is that the vast majority of the

 

>>>>>>>>>>> business

 

>>>>>>>>>>> world uses Windows and the associated applications. If you do

 

>>>>>>>>>>> a job

 

>>>>>>>>>>> for most companies you will run head on into the fact that

 

>>>>>>>>>>> your Linux

 

>>>>>>>>>>> system doesn't match their Windows.

 

>>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>>> Almost every project I have been on used Auto-Cad and during

 

>>>>>>>>>>> construction of a project there are innumerable changes in the

 

>>>>>>>>>>> drawings. The normal practice is to e-mail complete drawings

 

>>>>>>>>>>> back and

 

>>>>>>>>>>> forth between the Engineering Office and the Field. Up-dated

 

>>>>>>>>>>> drawing

 

>>>>>>>>>>> going out to the Field and marked up drawings showing the

 

>>>>>>>>>>> "As-builts"

 

>>>>>>>>>>> sent back.

 

>>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>>> Frequently if one writes a report the company will request

 

>>>>>>>>>>> that both a

 

>>>>>>>>>>> printed report and a disk copy be furnished, particularly if

 

>>>>>>>>>>> any form

 

>>>>>>>>>>> of legal problems are anticipated. And, with extremely rare

 

>>>>>>>>>>> exceptions

 

>>>>>>>>>>> they want the disks in "Word format".

 

>>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>>> It is all well and good to say "Well, Open Office can do the

 

>>>>>>>>>>> job", but

 

>>>>>>>>>>> if you deliver a Linux formatted disk with a OO document on

 

>>>>>>>>>>> it you

 

>>>>>>>>>>> will probably be told in no uncertain terms that it is not

 

>>>>>>>>>>> what you

 

>>>>>>>>>>> contracted to do.

 

>>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>>> Of course Auto-Cad will run on Linux using Wine but how big a

 

>>>>>>>>>>> data

 

>>>>>>>>>>> file can it handle? Are you sure that it can edit the largest

 

>>>>>>>>>>> drawing

 

>>>>>>>>>>> that the Engineers want to send? If you are out in the middle

 

>>>>>>>>>>> of a 100

 

>>>>>>>>>>> Sq. Km. sugar cane plantation in the middle of Java building

 

>>>>>>>>>>> a gas

 

>>>>>>>>>>> plant for the National Oil Company it is not really a good

 

>>>>>>>>>>> time to

 

>>>>>>>>>>> discover that you can't do your job because Linux won't do it.

 

>>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>>> No, as long as windows is the dominant computer operating

 

>>>>>>>>>>> system Linux

 

>>>>>>>>>>> is never going to be a wholly acceptable system..

 

>>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>>> John B. Slocomb

 

>>>>>>>>>>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

 

>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>> You're right. Some things can only be done with Windows, at

 

>>>>>>>>>> least for

 

>>>>>>>>>> now. My point is that most HOME USERS can do everything they

 

>>>>>>>>>> do with

 

>>>>>>>>>> Windows but more securely if they use Ubuntu or another Linux

 

>>>>>>>>>> distro.

 

>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>> I just installed Fedora 13 (beta) on my Granddaughter's game

 

>>>>>>>>> computer

 

>>>>>>>>> - dual boot, Win 7 and Fedora - and set up Clamav to do

 

>>>>>>>>> periodic virus

 

>>>>>>>>> scans on the Linux partition. Thought I'd give the kid a fighting

 

>>>>>>>>> chance so changed things around a bit so that Linux could see the

 

>>>>>>>>> windows directory and set up Clamav to scan that partition too.

 

>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>> This is a machine that a 7 year old girl uses and has the

 

>>>>>>>>> installed

 

>>>>>>>>> Win 7 firewall and whatever they call it that won't let you run a

 

>>>>>>>>> program without clicking on yet another permission box.

 

>>>>>>>>> Probably not

 

>>>>>>>>> earth shaking protection.

 

>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>> Results - no virus.

 

>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>> Actually, I have had one serious virus in something like 20

 

>>>>>>>>> years and

 

>>>>>>>>> I got that one from a bootleg copied disk. I use a firewall and do

 

>>>>>>>>> periodic virus scans but frankly I have never had a problem with

 

>>>>>>>>> mal-ware or virus that effected the operations of the computer.

 

>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>> My own suspicions are that these people who have massive

 

>>>>>>>>> problems with

 

>>>>>>>>> mal-ware or virus are very likely not using a decent firewall

 

>>>>>>>>> or are

 

>>>>>>>>> downloading a lot of porn and warz.

 

>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>> John B. Slocomb

 

>>>>>>>>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

 

>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>> You're forgetting about not updating Windows, Java, Flash, etc. as

 

>>>>>>>> causes. That's the beautiful thing about Linux: the updates update

 

>>>>>>>> everything you have installed if you configure it properly. Once

 

>>>>>>>> I had

 

>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>> That sounds quite modern - automatic updates. Of course Windows

 

>>>>>>> offers

 

>>>>>>> that service, if you want it.

 

>>>>>>> However I consider it a bit risky as at least twice I have updated

 

>>>>>>> Linux and in one case OpenOffice stopped running and in another the

 

>>>>>>> Nvidia display stopped working.

 

>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>> Hardly the miracle that you represent it to be.

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>> Not my experience and you are expecting me to believe you without any

 

>>>>>> proof? Can you say "hypocrite"?

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>> to clean up an XP machine that had never been defragged (customer:

 

>>>>>>>> what's that?) or updated (customer: what's that?). It took over ten

 

>>>>>>>> minutes to boot up and once it booted, pop up Windows had a fucking

 

>>>>>>>> field day. I ended up reinstalling XP because there was just too

 

>>>>>>>> much

 

>>>>>>>> malware to deal with and there was no guarantee that the AV and

 

>>>>>>>> other

 

>>>>>>>> anti malware programs would completely remove all malware.

 

>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>> You seem to be talking about three different things here. (1),

 

>>>>>>> updating software (2), de fragmenting a disk and (3), mal-ware.

 

>>>>>>> None

 

>>>>>>> of which have any relationship to the other.

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>> I was giving an example of a Windows box that wasn't updated and what

 

>>>>>> happens to Windows boxes that don't update. The lack of defragging

 

>>>>>> was

 

>>>>>> just another sign of how many home users "maintain" their computers.

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>> So not defraging the disk is a sign of an ignorant, lazy, Windows

 

>>>>> user?

 

>>>>

 

>>>> Ignorant, yes. Lazy, no.

 

>>>>

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>> So tell us oh Great and Omnipotent Ubuntu User how often do you

 

>>>>> defrag your Linux disks?

 

>>>>

 

>>>> Never.

 

>>>>

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>> If a failure to defrag a Windows disk is a mortal sin then it must be

 

>>>>> equally true for the Ubuntu User.

 

>>>>

 

>>>> No, it isn't.

 

>>>>

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>> John B. Slocomb

 

>>>>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

 

>>>>

 

>>>> You must have had 12 cups of coffee you're pissing so much.

 

>>>

 

>>>

 

>>> Gee, not de-fragging the disk is a mortal sin for the Windows user but

 

>>> the Linux users have some sort of dispensation and don't have to

 

>>> de-frag?

 

>>>

 

>>> Tell us more about this pseudo religion you seem to have invented.

 

>>>

 

>>> John B. Slocomb

 

>>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

 

>>

 

>> Alias, I am feeling very left out here. I asked you a legitimate

 

>> technical question and you failed to answer me. Like to take a shot at

 

>> explaining why you say that it is terrible when a Windows user doesn't

 

>> de-frag his disk but a Linux user doesn't need to de-frag his?

 

>>

 

>> A little technical discussion to liven up the thread?

 

>>

 

>> John B. Slocomb

 

>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

 

>

 

> http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_the_differences_between_Windows_and_Linux&alreadyAsked=1&rtitle=What_is_the_different_between_redhat_operating_system_and_windows_operating_system

 

>

 

>

 

> http://polishlinux.org/linux/windows-vs-linux-architecture-part-i/

 

>

 

> http://www.astahost.com/info.php/What39s-Difference-Linux-Unix33_t2124.html#Latest_Entry

 

>

 

>

 

> http://geekblog.oneandoneis2.org/index.php/2006/08/17/why_doesn_t_linux_need_defragmenting

 

>

 

>

 

> Need more?

 

>

 

> Try using this: http://www.google.com/ and stop being such a twit.

 

>

 

Translation: alias really doesn't know.

 

Oops!

On 5/17/2010 3:04 AM, Alias wrote:

 

> John B. Slocomb wrote:

 

>>

 

>> IT Facts

 

>> Alex Moskalyuk

 

>>

 

>> Home / News& Blogs / IT Facts

 

>> Linux servers hacked more frequently than Windows

 

>>

 

>> By ZDNet Research | February 19, 2004, 8:21am PST

 

>> Summary

 

>> A more specific analysis of government servers also found Linux more

 

>> susceptible, accounting for 57% of all breaches. The research did not

 

>> include other methods of intrusion such as viruses and worms.

 

>>

 

>> John B. Slocomb

 

>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

 

>

 

> Six year old article that is obviously biased. You *really* are desperate.

 

 

 

You just took it up your dumb, stupid, ignorant, arrogant ass.

 

You liked it huh?

 

Figures!

On 5/17/2010 5:13 AM, DanS wrote:

 

> Bob I wrote in

 

> news:D8SHn.11873$mi.8324@newsfe01.iad:

 

>

 

>>

 

>>

 

>> On 5/15/2010 7:43 PM, DanS wrote:

 

>>> Bob I wrote in

 

>>> news:H6GHn.4871$yx.324@newsfe13.iad:

 

>>>

 

>>>> The reason that "Linux" isn't targeted is that there

 

>>>> aren't enough installations to bother with. Lets face it,

 

>>>> if the Mariposa botnet was counted as separate OS, it

 

>>>> would have more users than Linux!

 

>>>

 

>>> You are confirming is that Windows is the imminent target

 

>>> of spyware/malware writers ? (Which was the original point

 

>>> of this thread branch.)

 

>>>

 

>>> It doesn't matter why. At this time, Windows is more

 

>>> susceptible than Linux.

 

>>

 

>> Ah yes, the old "Security through Obscurity" ploy.

 

>> Susceptible!=Vulnerable

 

>

 

> What is obscure ?

 

 

 

Market share.

 

>

 

> Do the virii/malware/spyware writers not know that Linux

 

> exists ?

 

>

 

They don't give a shit.

 

 

> These developers can't get their hands on a Liux distro to

 

> experiment ?

 

 

 

Stick to your day job, if you still have one as marketing is about your

 

pay grade.

On 5/17/2010 3:08 AM, Alias wrote:

 

> John B. Slocomb wrote:

 

>> On Sun, 16 May 2010 17:03:43 +0200, Alias

 

>> wrote:

 

>>

 

>>> On 05/16/2010 02:48 PM, Tony Yarwood wrote:

 

>>>>

 

>>>> On Sun, 16 May 2010 09:33:41 +0700, John B. Slocomb

 

>>>> wrote:

 

>>>>

 

>>>>

 

>>>>> I agree, at the moment. The point that I was trying to make is that if

 

>>>>> Linux ever gains a dominant position in the computer world that the

 

>>>>> amount of Linux mal-ware will increase proportionally.

 

>>>>>

 

>>>> Root kits were originally designed for Unix systems.

 

>>>>

 

>>>> Best regards

 

>>>>

 

>>>> Tony

 

>>>

 

>>> Yet there are only used on Windows boxes.

 

>>

 

>> First of all, it is "they're",

 

>

 

> No shit. Ever hear of typos? Oh, I forgot, you're perfect and expect

 

> everyone else to be the same or you will put them down until the fucking

 

> cows come home.

 

>

 

>> but ignoring that root-kits were used

 

>> on Linux systems, after all, why else were they named "root-kits",

 

>> that is a Unix/Linux term.

 

>>

 

>> John B. Slocomb

 

>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

 

>

 

> It may be a Linux term but it's used extensively with Windows and much

 

> more successfully than with Linux.

 

>

 

*BULLSHIT*! It is almost exclusively a linux term.

"Heywood Jablowme" wrote in message

 

news:4beb0c74@news.x-privat.org...

 

>

 

>

 

> wrote in message

 

> news:hdkmu59pdkha3inpite9bgcsenrjtspvsu@4ax.com...

 

>> Well after working with Vista II, otherwise known as Windows 7, for

 

>> three months I can see that Microsoft is still incapable of producing

 

>> a quality OS. So I need to look at some other system to switch to,

 

>> likely one of the Linux distros.

 

>>

 

>> Bill - MN

 

>> --

 

>

 

> So you can't figure out Windows 7? Windows 7 is much better than Vista

 

> and is very stable. You are probably incompetent and therefore you should

 

> migrate to Ubuntu. Get with our resident Ubuntu idiot, Alias and he will

 

> help you out.

 

>

 

> Don't let the screen door hit your ass on the way out. LOL!

 

 

 

Uncalled for. You sound like some of the MacFreaks on CSMA.

On 5/17/2010 2:01 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:

 

>

 

> Very likely true, but then I am dealing with a fool and as they say

 

> "in Roman do as the Romans do".

 

>

 

> John B. Slocomb

 

> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

 

 

 

Who is more foolish, the fool or the fool that keeps arguing and

 

replying to the fool?

"DanS" wrote in message

 

news:Xns9D7B5405A85BAthisnthatroadrunnern@216.196.97.131...

 

> "Death" wrote in

 

> news:4befe126$1@news.x-privat.org:

 

>

 

>>

 

>> "DanS" wrote

 

>> in message

 

>> news:Xns9D7A5133FC03Cthisnthatroadrunnern@216.196.97.131...

 

>>>>> It doesn't matter why. At this time, Windows is more

 

>>>>> susceptible than Linux.

 

>>>>

 

>>>> People with money are more likely to be robbed.

 

>>>> No duh...moron.

 

>>>> Were you born stupid, or did a brick land in your brain

 

>>>> cavity?

 

>>>>

 

>>>

 

>>> And just so I'm completely clear, *you* have nothing

 

>>> intelligent to say, so you just spit out insults and an

 

>>> insinuation that Linux users are poor.

 

>>>

 

>>> ........you are a Linux user also.

 

>>

 

>

 

>

 

 

 

Why snip it?

 

It's exactly why Windows and Office are so popular, and linux is getting

 

nowhere fast.

 

Linux and it's apps suck.

 

Deal with it.

 

 

 

--

 

Vita brevis breviter in brevi finietur,

 

Mors venit velociter quae neminem veretur.

"John B. Slocomb" wrote in message

 

news:m6p1v5dhgriktfqk4o4ao6qc51lfhsjc7c@4ax.com...

 

> On Sun, 16 May 2010 07:36:15 -0400, "Death"

 

SNIP

 

 

>>> Got proof? >>

 

>>

 

>>Not in my pocket.

 

>>You may Google "Linux servers Hacked" and read all the resulting links for

 

>>the next couple of years.

 

>>Knock yourself out.

 

>>It happens, dummy.

 

>>

 

>

 

>

 

> For example:

 

>

 

> IT Facts

 

> Alex Moskalyuk

 

>

 

> Home / News & Blogs / IT Facts

 

> Linux servers hacked more frequently than Windows

 

>

 

> By ZDNet Research | February 19, 2004, 8:21am PST

 

> Summary

 

> An analysis of hacker attacks on online servers in January by security

 

> consultancy mi2g found that Linux servers were the most frequently

 

> violated, accounting for 13,654 successful attacks, or 80% of the

 

> survey total. Windows ran a distant second with 2,005 attacks.

 

>

 

> A more specific analysis of government servers also found Linux more

 

> susceptible, accounting for 57% of all breaches. The research did not

 

> include other methods of intrusion such as viruses and worms.

 

>

 

 

 

Alias couldn't find one that said that.

 

He's a good hen pecker/ubuntard.

 

Ask him to find a link bashing Windows...take him 15 seconds(or less, bet he

 

has a list)

 

 

 

--

 

Vita brevis breviter in brevi finietur,

 

Mors venit velociter quae neminem veretur.

"Mocassin Joe" wrote in message

 

news:GNeIn.12010$Gx2.6820@newsfe20.iad...

 

>

 

> "Heywood Jablowme" wrote in message

 

> news:4beb0c74@news.x-privat.org...

 

>>

 

>>

 

>> wrote in message

 

>> news:hdkmu59pdkha3inpite9bgcsenrjtspvsu@4ax.com...

 

>>> Well after working with Vista II, otherwise known as Windows 7, for

 

>>> three months I can see that Microsoft is still incapable of producing

 

>>> a quality OS. So I need to look at some other system to switch to,

 

>>> likely one of the Linux distros.

 

>>>

 

>>> Bill - MN

 

>>> --

 

>>

 

>> So you can't figure out Windows 7? Windows 7 is much better than Vista

 

>> and is very stable. You are probably incompetent and therefore you

 

>> should migrate to Ubuntu. Get with our resident Ubuntu idiot, Alias and

 

>> he will help you out.

 

>>

 

>> Don't let the screen door hit your ass on the way out. LOL!

 

>

 

> Uncalled for. You sound like some of the MacFreaks on CSMA.

 

>

 

 

 

You don't like the message? Ignore it. Just FYI.

"Alias" wrote in message

 

news:hsmacj$cb7$2@news.eternal-september.org...

 

> Death wrote:

 

>> Alias wrote:

 

>>

 

>>> John B. Slocomb wrote:

 

>>>> On Sat, 15 May 2010 13:18:44 +0200, Alias

 

>>>> wrote:

 

>>>>

 

>>>>> On 05/15/2010 05:40 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:

 

>>>>>> On Fri, 14 May 2010 18:53:28 +0200, 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.

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>> I think that one of the reasons for the "Oh! Linux can do anything

 

>>>>>> that Windows can" fiction is that most of the people using either

 

>>>>>> system aren't using it professionally.

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>> One of the major reasons is that the vast majority of the business

 

>>>>>> world uses Windows and the associated applications. If you do a job

 

>>>>>> for most companies you will run head on into the fact that your Linux

 

>>>>>> system doesn't match their Windows.

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>> Almost every project I have been on used Auto-Cad and during

 

>>>>>> construction of a project there are innumerable changes in the

 

>>>>>> drawings. The normal practice is to e-mail complete drawings back and

 

>>>>>> forth between the Engineering Office and the Field. Up-dated drawing

 

>>>>>> going out to the Field and marked up drawings showing the "As-builts"

 

>>>>>> sent back.

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>> Frequently if one writes a report the company will request that both

 

>>>>>> a

 

>>>>>> printed report and a disk copy be furnished, particularly if any form

 

>>>>>> of legal problems are anticipated. And, with extremely rare

 

>>>>>> exceptions

 

>>>>>> they want the disks in "Word format".

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>> It is all well and good to say "Well, Open Office can do the job",

 

>>>>>> but

 

>>>>>> if you deliver a Linux formatted disk with a OO document on it you

 

>>>>>> will probably be told in no uncertain terms that it is not what you

 

>>>>>> contracted to do.

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>> Of course Auto-Cad will run on Linux using Wine but how big a data

 

>>>>>> file can it handle? Are you sure that it can edit the largest drawing

 

>>>>>> that the Engineers want to send? If you are out in the middle of a

 

>>>>>> 100

 

>>>>>> Sq. Km. sugar cane plantation in the middle of Java building a gas

 

>>>>>> plant for the National Oil Company it is not really a good time to

 

>>>>>> discover that you can't do your job because Linux won't do it.

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>> No, as long as windows is the dominant computer operating system

 

>>>>>> Linux

 

>>>>>> is never going to be a wholly acceptable system..

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>> John B. Slocomb

 

>>>>>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>> You're right. Some things can only be done with Windows, at least for

 

>>>>> now. My point is that most HOME USERS can do everything they do with

 

>>>>> Windows but more securely if they use Ubuntu or another Linux distro.

 

>>>>

 

>>>> I just installed Fedora 13 (beta) on my Granddaughter's game computer

 

>>>> - dual boot, Win 7 and Fedora - and set up Clamav to do periodic virus

 

>>>> scans on the Linux partition. Thought I'd give the kid a fighting

 

>>>> chance so changed things around a bit so that Linux could see the

 

>>>> windows directory and set up Clamav to scan that partition too.

 

>>>>

 

>>>> This is a machine that a 7 year old girl uses and has the installed

 

>>>> Win 7 firewall and whatever they call it that won't let you run a

 

>>>> program without clicking on yet another permission box. Probably not

 

>>>> earth shaking protection.

 

>>>>

 

>>>> Results - no virus.

 

>>>>

 

>>>> Actually, I have had one serious virus in something like 20 years and

 

>>>> I got that one from a bootleg copied disk. I use a firewall and do

 

>>>> periodic virus scans but frankly I have never had a problem with

 

>>>> mal-ware or virus that effected the operations of the computer.

 

>>>>

 

>>>> My own suspicions are that these people who have massive problems with

 

>>>> mal-ware or virus are very likely not using a decent firewall or are

 

>>>> downloading a lot of porn and warz.

 

>>>>

 

>>>> John B. Slocomb

 

>>>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

 

>>>

 

>>> You're forgetting about not updating Windows, Java, Flash, etc. as

 

>>> causes. That's the beautiful thing about Linux: the updates update

 

>>> everything you have installed if you configure it properly.

 

>>

 

>> Windows,java,Flash,whatever-your-heart-desires gets updated in Windows

 

>> automatically,dummy.

 

>> Do you actual run Windows, or do you just despise it?

 

>

 

> You're wrong on all counts.

 

>

 

>>

 

>>

 

>>> Once I had

 

>>> to clean up an XP machine that had never been defragged (customer:

 

>>> what's that?) or updated (customer: what's that?). It took over ten

 

>>> minutes to boot up and once it booted, pop up Windows had a fucking

 

>>> field day. I ended up reinstalling XP because there was just too much

 

>>> malware to deal with and there was no guarantee that the AV and other

 

>>> anti malware programs would completely remove all malware.

 

>>>

 

>>

 

>> You re-installed XP cause that is your skill level...stick a DVD/live-CD

 

>> in a tray, call it "support".

 

>

 

> You obviously know nothing about cleaning up Windows machines.

 

>

 

> --

 

> Alias

 

 

 

So you are a PC tech in Spain. I guess that $14k a week you claim to get

 

just doesn't go very far! LOL!

"Alias" wrote in message

 

news:hsp1eb$tid$3@news.eternal-september.org...

 

>>

 

>> In other words, you are simply enforcing my statement that "At least

 

>> the problems that they seem to post..."

 

>>

 

>> Alias, no one needs to discredit you. You do such a complete job of it

 

>> all by your self.

 

>>

 

>>

 

>>

 

>> John B. Slocomb

 

>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

 

>

 

> Do you even read what you post?

 

>

 

> --

 

> Alias

 

 

 

Do you even understand what you read?

"Heywood Jablowme" wrote in message

 

news:4bf1b248$1@news.x-privat.org...

 

>

 

>

 

> "Mocassin Joe" wrote in message

 

> news:GNeIn.12010$Gx2.6820@newsfe20.iad...

 

>>

 

>> "Heywood Jablowme" wrote in message

 

>> news:4beb0c74@news.x-privat.org...

 

>>>

 

>>>

 

>>> wrote in message

 

>>> news:hdkmu59pdkha3inpite9bgcsenrjtspvsu@4ax.com...

 

>>>> Well after working with Vista II, otherwise known as Windows 7, for

 

>>>> three months I can see that Microsoft is still incapable of producing

 

>>>> a quality OS. So I need to look at some other system to switch to,

 

>>>> likely one of the Linux distros.

 

>>>>

 

>>>> Bill - MN

 

>>>> --

 

>>>

 

>>> So you can't figure out Windows 7? Windows 7 is much better than Vista

 

>>> and is very stable. You are probably incompetent and therefore you

 

>>> should migrate to Ubuntu. Get with our resident Ubuntu idiot, Alias

 

>>> and he will help you out.

 

>>>

 

>>> Don't let the screen door hit your ass on the way out. LOL!

 

>>

 

>> Uncalled for. You sound like some of the MacFreaks on CSMA.

 

>>

 

>

 

> You don't like the message? Ignore it. Just FYI.

 

 

 

I didn't say that. You should buy a Mac.

"Death" wrote in

 

news:4bf1a080@news.x-privat.org:

 

 

>

 

> "DanS" wrote

 

> in message

 

> news:Xns9D7B5405A85BAthisnthatroadrunnern@216.196.97.131...

 

>> "Death" wrote in

 

>> news:4befe126$1@news.x-privat.org:

 

>>

 

>>>

 

>>> "DanS"

 

>>> wrote in message

 

>>> news:Xns9D7A5133FC03Cthisnthatroadrunnern@216.196.97.131..

 

>>> .

 

>>>>>> It doesn't matter why. At this time, Windows is more

 

>>>>>> susceptible than Linux.

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>> People with money are more likely to be robbed.

 

>>>>> No duh...moron.

 

>>>>> Were you born stupid, or did a brick land in your brain

 

>>>>> cavity?

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>

 

>>>> And just so I'm completely clear, *you* have nothing

 

>>>> intelligent to say, so you just spit out insults and an

 

>>>> insinuation that Linux users are poor.

 

>>>>

 

>>>> ........you are a Linux user also.

 

>>>

 

>>

 

>>

 

>

 

> Why snip it?

 

> It's exactly why Windows and Office are so popular, and

 

> linux is getting nowhere fast.

 

> Linux and it's apps suck.

 

> Deal with it.

 

>

 

 

 

Windows and Office are so popular because almost all expoits

 

ever created are for Windows, and that because of this, there

 

is an inherent susceptibilty?

 

 

 

Well, that was the topic of this sub-thread....not your

 

incessant whining about how nothing in Linux ever works for

 

you.

 

 

 

One specific discussion subject that you turn into crying

 

about your problems and how Linux sucks and will never go

 

anywhere, blah, blah, blah...........

 

 

 

They were OT as they did not have anything to do with the

 

subject at hand.

"DanS" wrote in message

 

news:Xns9D7BD946D35A8thisnthatroadrunnern@216.196.97.131...

 

> "Death" wrote in

 

> news:4bf1a080@news.x-privat.org:

 

>

 

>>

 

>> "DanS" wrote

 

>> in message

 

>> news:Xns9D7B5405A85BAthisnthatroadrunnern@216.196.97.131...

 

>>> "Death" wrote in

 

>>> news:4befe126$1@news.x-privat.org:

 

>>>

 

>>>>

 

>>>> "DanS"

 

>>>> wrote in message

 

>>>> news:Xns9D7A5133FC03Cthisnthatroadrunnern@216.196.97.131..

 

>>>> .

 

>>>>>>> It doesn't matter why. At this time, Windows is more

 

>>>>>>> susceptible than Linux.

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>> People with money are more likely to be robbed.

 

>>>>>> No duh...moron.

 

>>>>>> Were you born stupid, or did a brick land in your brain

 

>>>>>> cavity?

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>> And just so I'm completely clear, *you* have nothing

 

>>>>> intelligent to say, so you just spit out insults and an

 

>>>>> insinuation that Linux users are poor.

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>> ........you are a Linux user also.

 

>>>>

 

>>>

 

>>>

 

>>

 

>> Why snip it?

 

>> It's exactly why Windows and Office are so popular, and

 

>> linux is getting nowhere fast.

 

>> Linux and it's apps suck.

 

>> Deal with it.

 

>>

 

>

 

> Windows and Office are so popular because almost all expoits

 

> ever created are for Windows, and that because of this, there

 

> is an inherent susceptibilty?

 

>

 

> Well, that was the topic of this sub-thread....not your

 

> incessant whining about how nothing in Linux ever works for

 

> you.

 

>

 

> One specific discussion subject that you turn into crying

 

> about your problems and how Linux sucks and will never go

 

> anywhere, blah, blah, blah...........

 

>

 

> They were OT as they did not have anything to do with the

 

> subject at hand.

 

 

 

Well then Dumass Junior...keep you fuckin nose out of threads you don't

 

belong in.

 

You only cried that I claimed poor people only use Linux, when I did not.

 

Alias said that...you took my metaphor, and snipped it into an out of

 

context statement, like you always do, asshole.

 

So, all my replies to you in the future will be to STFU Loser.

 

 

 

--

 

Vita brevis breviter in brevi finietur,

 

Mors venit velociter quae neminem veretur.

On Mon, 17 May 2010 17:33:19 +0200, Alias

 

wrote:

 

 

>John B. Slocomb wrote:

 

>> On Mon, 17 May 2010 13:47:05 +0700, John B. Slocomb

 

>> wrote:

 

 

>> Alias, I am feeling very left out here. I asked you a legitimate

 

>> technical question and you failed to answer me. Like to take a shot at

 

>> explaining why you say that it is terrible when a Windows user doesn't

 

>> de-frag his disk but a Linux user doesn't need to de-frag his?

 

>>

 

>> A little technical discussion to liven up the thread?

 

>>

 

>> John B. Slocomb

 

>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

 

>

 

>http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_the_differences_between_Windows_and_Linux&alreadyAsked=1&rtitle=What_is_the_different_between_redhat_operating_system_and_windows_operating_system

 

>

 

>http://polishlinux.org/linux/windows-vs-linux-architecture-part-i/

 

>

 

>http://www.astahost.com/info.php/What39s-Difference-Linux-Unix33_t2124.html#Latest_Entry

 

>

 

>http://geekblog.oneandoneis2.org/index.php/2006/08/17/why_doesn_t_linux_need_defragmenting

 

>

 

>Need more?

 

>

 

>Try using this: http://www.google.com/ and stop being such a twit.

 

 

 

Ah... So as I suspected you didn't know enough about either Linux or

 

Windows to explain the difference.

 

 

 

However, your first reference doesn't discuss disk defragging.

 

 

 

In addition your second reference doesn't discuss disk defragging.

 

 

 

And, not only that, but your third reference doesn't discuss disk

 

defragging.

 

 

 

And finally, TA! DA!, your fourth reference discusses disk defraging.

 

 

 

I've had this feeling all along that you didn't really know very much

 

about computers and all this shouting and hand waving was really a

 

facade to disguise the fact. And you prove it.

 

 

 

You made the statement that de-fraging was necessary and I questioned

 

it, you, not knowing the answer ignored my question I asked again,

 

with emphasis, and lo and behold, you went to google and discovered

 

some references but apparently, not only did you know anything about

 

the subject, but you didn't even read the references that you posted

 

as three of the four had no relationship to the subject.

 

 

 

You have certainly proved my original belief that you don't know what

 

you are talking about as even your final reference doesn't state that

 

defragging a Linux disk is never necessary.

 

 

 

So that you won't have to take the bother to actually read any of your

 

references I'll quote from your only valid reference:

 

 

 

NOTE: The "first filesystem" refers to Windows and the "second" refers

 

to Linux

 

 

 

--------------------------------------------------

 

The first filesystem tries to put all files as close to the start of

 

the hard drive as it can, thus it constantly fragments files when they

 

grow larger and there's no free space available.

 

 

 

The second scatters files all over the disk so there's plenty of free

 

space if the file's size changes. It can also re-arrange files

 

on-the-fly, since it has plenty of empty space to shuffle around.

 

Defragging the first type of filesystem is a more intensive process

 

and not really practical to run during normal use.

 

 

 

Fragmentation thus only becomes an issue on this latter type of system

 

when a disk is so full that there just aren't any gaps a large file

 

can be put into without splitting it up. So long as the disk is less

 

than about 80% full, this is unlikely to happen.

 

-----------------------------------------

 

 

 

If you had bothered to read what you referenced you would have seen

 

that the author states that a Linux disk will remain unfragmented

 

UNTIL ABOUT 80% OF THE DISK IS FILLED.

 

 

 

( although that is very dependant on the size of files being stored)

 

 

 

So, your assertion that Linux disks don't require defragging is

 

technically false although probably true, in practice, except in large

 

file servers.

 

 

 

However, that was not the point of the exercise. The point of the

 

exercise was to discover whether you really were as un-knowledgeable

 

about computers as had been suspected and you certainly removed any

 

doubt about the matter.

 

 

 

And you are lazy too. You didn't even read the references that you

 

provided.

 

 

 

You have the audacity to "help" people with their computers? Amazing!

 

It certainly says something about the gullibility of the people you

 

associate with, doesn't it?

 

 

 

 

 

John B. Slocomb

 

(johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

John B. Slocomb wrote:

 

> On Mon, 17 May 2010 17:33:19 +0200, Alias

 

> wrote:

 

>

 

>> John B. Slocomb wrote:

 

>>> On Mon, 17 May 2010 13:47:05 +0700, John B. Slocomb

 

>>> wrote:

 

>

 

>>> Alias, I am feeling very left out here. I asked you a legitimate

 

>>> technical question and you failed to answer me. Like to take a shot at

 

>>> explaining why you say that it is terrible when a Windows user doesn't

 

>>> de-frag his disk but a Linux user doesn't need to de-frag his?

 

>>>

 

>>> A little technical discussion to liven up the thread?

 

>>>

 

>>> John B. Slocomb

 

>>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

 

>>

 

>> http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_the_differences_between_Windows_and_Linux&alreadyAsked=1&rtitle=What_is_the_different_between_redhat_operating_system_and_windows_operating_system

 

>>

 

>> http://polishlinux.org/linux/windows-vs-linux-architecture-part-i/

 

>>

 

>> http://www.astahost.com/info.php/What39s-Difference-Linux-Unix33_t2124.html#Latest_Entry

 

>>

 

>> http://geekblog.oneandoneis2.org/index.php/2006/08/17/why_doesn_t_linux_need_defragmenting

 

>>

 

>> Need more?

 

>>

 

>> Try using this: http://www.google.com/ and stop being such a twit.

 

>

 

> Ah... So as I suspected you didn't know enough about either Linux or

 

> Windows to explain the difference.

 

>

 

> However, your first reference doesn't discuss disk defragging.

 

>

 

> In addition your second reference doesn't discuss disk defragging.

 

>

 

> And, not only that, but your third reference doesn't discuss disk

 

> defragging.

 

>

 

> And finally, TA! DA!, your fourth reference discusses disk defraging.

 

>

 

> I've had this feeling all along that you didn't really know very much

 

> about computers and all this shouting and hand waving was really a

 

> facade to disguise the fact. And you prove it.

 

>

 

> You made the statement that de-fraging was necessary and I questioned

 

> it, you, not knowing the answer ignored my question I asked again,

 

> with emphasis, and lo and behold, you went to google and discovered

 

> some references but apparently, not only did you know anything about

 

> the subject, but you didn't even read the references that you posted

 

> as three of the four had no relationship to the subject.

 

>

 

> You have certainly proved my original belief that you don't know what

 

> you are talking about as even your final reference doesn't state that

 

> defragging a Linux disk is never necessary.

 

>

 

> So that you won't have to take the bother to actually read any of your

 

> references I'll quote from your only valid reference:

 

>

 

> NOTE: The "first filesystem" refers to Windows and the "second" refers

 

> to Linux

 

>

 

> --------------------------------------------------

 

> The first filesystem tries to put all files as close to the start of

 

> the hard drive as it can, thus it constantly fragments files when they

 

> grow larger and there's no free space available.

 

>

 

> The second scatters files all over the disk so there's plenty of free

 

> space if the file's size changes. It can also re-arrange files

 

> on-the-fly, since it has plenty of empty space to shuffle around.

 

> Defragging the first type of filesystem is a more intensive process

 

> and not really practical to run during normal use.

 

>

 

> Fragmentation thus only becomes an issue on this latter type of system

 

> when a disk is so full that there just aren't any gaps a large file

 

> can be put into without splitting it up. So long as the disk is less

 

> than about 80% full, this is unlikely to happen.

 

> -----------------------------------------

 

>

 

> If you had bothered to read what you referenced you would have seen

 

> that the author states that a Linux disk will remain unfragmented

 

> UNTIL ABOUT 80% OF THE DISK IS FILLED.

 

>

 

> ( although that is very dependant on the size of files being stored)

 

>

 

> So, your assertion that Linux disks don't require defragging is

 

> technically false although probably true, in practice, except in large

 

> file servers.

 

>

 

> However, that was not the point of the exercise. The point of the

 

> exercise was to discover whether you really were as un-knowledgeable

 

> about computers as had been suspected and you certainly removed any

 

> doubt about the matter.

 

>

 

> And you are lazy too. You didn't even read the references that you

 

> provided.

 

>

 

> You have the audacity to "help" people with their computers? Amazing!

 

> It certainly says something about the gullibility of the people you

 

> associate with, doesn't it?

 

>

 

>

 

> John B. Slocomb

 

> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

 

 

 

You are putting words in my mouth again. Not only have I posted that I

 

am not a computer expert, I have never claimed to know everything about

 

computers. The fact that someone's lack of knowledge is a brownie point

 

for you says more about you than me, chum. That said, I provided you

 

with links that describe the differences between Linux and Windows and

 

why Linux doesn't need defragging. You could have done the same thing

 

with a cursory Google search AND YOU KNOW IT. You only purpose in asking

 

was to try and set me up to prove that I'm not as knowledgeable as you.

 

As you obviously don't know, every so often Ubuntu does a hard drive

 

check when booting and before loading the desktop. I'm not sure if

 

that's just a disk check or a defrag but I'm not a computer expert.

 

 

 

You diss me for helping people. That also says more about you than me. I

 

help where I can and don't post anything if I don't know the answer.

 

 

 

--

 

Alias