Re: Micoshaft recommends Linux

Discussion in 'Computer Support' started by Conor, May 22, 2009.

  1. Conor

    Conor Guest

    In article <8%nRl.32158$>, 7 says...

    > It took me 17 minutes from clicking start of installation
    > to finishing installation, booting up
    > AND browsing first web page!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    >

    It'd take you 17 minutes to scroll through a webpage if you have Intel
    graphics.

    What you didn't say is it then took a full day of fucking around to get
    it to work.

    > VirtualBox
    > ----------
    > Yes! VirtualBox can run on Ubutu set up with 3D translucent desktop.
    > http://www.virtualbox.org
    >

    Why? Is Linux so shit that you need to be able to run Windows or WINE
    on it to have decent software?


    --
    Conor

    I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't
    looking good either. - Scott Adams
    Conor, May 22, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Conor

    RonB Guest

    Conor wrote:
    > In article <8%nRl.32158$>, 7 says...
    >
    >> It took me 17 minutes from clicking start of installation
    >> to finishing installation, booting up
    >> AND browsing first web page!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    >>

    > It'd take you 17 minutes to scroll through a webpage if you have Intel
    > graphics.
    >
    > What you didn't say is it then took a full day of fucking around to get
    > it to work.


    No, he was running Linux, not Vista. Stay focused.

    >> VirtualBox
    >> ----------
    >> Yes! VirtualBox can run on Ubutu set up with 3D translucent desktop.
    >> http://www.virtualbox.org
    >>

    > Why? Is Linux so shit that you need to be able to run Windows or WINE
    > on it to have decent software?


    There are some specialty Windows programs not made for Linux. VirtualBox
    is the safest way to run Windows -- just keep it in its own little box
    where it can't hurt anyone.

    --
    RonB
    "There's a story there...somewhere"
    RonB, May 22, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Conor

    Conor Guest

    In article <gv5nal$2ju$-september.org>, RonB says...

    > No, he was running Linux, not Vista. Stay focused.
    >

    Good luck in getting windows network browsing working from Gnome 2.24
    onwards.


    > There are some specialty Windows programs not made for Linux. VirtualBox
    > is the safest way to run Windows -- just keep it in its own little box
    > where it can't hurt anyone.


    Another moron who thinks Linux is impervious to malware.
    --
    Conor

    I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't
    looking good either. - Scott Adams
    Conor, May 22, 2009
    #3
  4. Conor <> wrote:
    > In article <gv5nal$2ju$-september.org>, RonB says...
    >
    >> No, he was running Linux, not Vista. Stay focused.
    >>

    > Good luck in getting windows network browsing working from Gnome 2.24
    > onwards.
    >
    >
    >> There are some specialty Windows programs not made for Linux. VirtualBox
    >> is the safest way to run Windows -- just keep it in its own little box
    >> where it can't hurt anyone.

    >
    > Another moron who thinks Linux is impervious to malware.


    Oh, not impervious... Any old script could be downloaded...
    But how would the script convince someone to run it?
    "when downloading this file, please ensure that you chmod it to executable
    with the command chmod +x iwillwreckyourcomputer and then run it"?
    Oh, you mean some remote exploit with privilage escalation? Oh, yeah, linux
    has those occasionally. Usually it'd require a remote exploit just to gain
    access followed by ANOTHER, local exploit to gain root though...

    Good luck on targetting THAT, because linux is such a diverse little OS
    you'd probably only be able to find 4 out of millions who were vulnerable...
    Which is hardly worth the effort

    And those would vanish with the next patch to what-ever the program(s)
    was(were) with the vuln.

    How many viruses are there in the wild for linux again?
    Hell, how many have their been in linux's entire history?
    Compare and contrast with windows and MacOS.
    --
    | | "I'm alive!!! I can touch! I can taste! |
    | Andrew Halliwell BSc | I can SMELL!!! KRYTEN!!! Unpack Rachel and |
    | in | get out the puncture repair kit!" |
    | Computer Science | Arnold Judas Rimmer- Red Dwarf |
    Andrew Halliwell, May 22, 2009
    #4
  5. Conor

    RonB Guest

    Conor wrote:
    > In article <gv5nal$2ju$-september.org>, RonB says...
    >
    >> No, he was running Linux, not Vista. Stay focused.
    >>

    > Good luck in getting windows network browsing working from Gnome 2.24
    > onwards.


    Not a concern for me.

    >> There are some specialty Windows programs not made for Linux. VirtualBox
    >> is the safest way to run Windows -- just keep it in its own little box
    >> where it can't hurt anyone.

    >
    > Another moron who thinks Linux is impervious to malware.


    It sure is a hell of a lot more impervious than the malware magnet,
    Windows -- also known as the Swiss Cheese of Operating Systems.

    --
    RonB
    "There's a story there...somewhere"
    RonB, May 22, 2009
    #5
  6. bcoombes <bcoombes@orangedotnet> wrote:
    > Here's a nice linux malware list :):-
    > 55808 Trojan - Variant A
    > ADM W0rm
    > AjaKit
    > aPa Kit
    > Apache Worm
    > Ambient (ark) Rootkit
    > Balaur Rootkit
    > BeastKit
    > beX2
    > BOBKit
    > CiNIK Worm (Slapper.B variant)
    > Danny-Boy's Abuse Kit
    > Devil RootKit
    > Dica
    > Dreams Rootkit
    > Duarawkz Rootkit
    > Flea Linux Rootkit
    > FreeBSD Rootkit
    > ****`it Rootkit
    > GasKit
    > Heroin LKM
    > HjC Rootkit
    > ignoKit
    > ImperalsS-FBRK
    > Irix Rootkit
    > Kitko
    > Knark
    > Li0n Worm
    > Lockit / LJK2
    > mod_rootme (Apache backdoor)
    > MRK
    > Ni0 Rootkit
    > NSDAP (RootKit for SunOS)
    > Optic Kit (Tux)
    > Oz Rootkit
    > Portacelo
    > R3dstorm Toolkit
    > RH-Sharpe's rootkit
    > RSHA's rootkit
    > Scalper Worm
    > Shutdown
    > SHV4 Rootkit
    > SHV5 Rootkit
    > Sin Rootkit
    > Slapper
    > Sneakin Rootkit
    > Suckit
    > SunOS Rootkit
    > Superkit
    > TBD (Telnet BackDoor)
    > TeLeKiT
    > T0rn Rootkit
    > Trojanit Kit
    > URK (Universal RootKit)
    > VcKit
    > Volc Rootkit
    > X-Org SunOS Rootkit
    > zaRwT.KiT Rootkit
    > Anti Anti-sniffer
    > LuCe LKM
    > THC Backdoor
    > Of course there are many, many more for M$ Winders but then it only takes one. :)


    Thing about those is... how many of them require local access to install
    them? (most of the rootkits fall into that category, I imagine)
    How many work on social rather than network security by having the user
    download and run the program manually?

    The Apache worm isn't specific to linux, apache runs on BSD, windows and mac
    as well, so how many of those aren't specific to linux?

    If you seperated them out into categories of "linux only", "auto-infection"
    and "manual infection/local access required", how would they be split?

    And why did you include "X-Org SunOS rootkit"? SunOS is a fullblown
    commercial unix, not linux. Completely different beast.

    In fact... As you included one, how many more of those are unix malware
    rather than linux?

    And of course, the final question... How many of those worked by exploits
    that no longer exist?
    --
    | ,uk | "Are you pondering what I'm pondering Pinky?" |
    | Andrew Halliwell BSc | |
    | in | "I think so brain, but this time, you control |
    | Computer Science | the Encounter suit, and I'll do the voice..." |
    Andrew Halliwell, May 22, 2009
    #6
  7. bcoombes <bcoombes@orangedotnet> wrote:
    >> And why did you include "X-Org SunOS rootkit"? SunOS is a fullblown
    >> commercial unix, not linux. Completely different beast.
    >>

    > Cretin! Try reading this if you can read.
    > http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Teaching/Unix/unixintro.html


    My, how delightful.
    Perfectly acceptable post and this is the reply I get.
    You're one of the new wintrolls then, I take it? I won't bother to welcome
    you, cos you're not. Can't even answer a simple question. Prolly cos you're
    too simple to understand it.

    I know what unix is, thank you very much. It's not as if I've not USED SunOS
    before. I also know that linux is not Unix and just because a malware runs
    on unix does not automatically mean it will run on linux without
    modification. It depends on how it was written and what it was designed to
    exploit.

    Oh, and that website is just plain wrong.

    There are many different versions of UNIX, although they share common
    similarities. The most popular varieties of UNIX are Sun Solaris,
    GNU/Linux, and MacOS X.

    What a twat you are.
    --
    | | |
    | Andrew Halliwell BSc | "ARSE! GERLS!! DRINK! DRINK! DRINK!!!" |
    | in | "THAT WOULD BE AN ECUMENICAL MATTER!...FECK!!!! |
    | Computer Science | - Father Jack in "Father Ted" |
    Andrew Halliwell, May 22, 2009
    #7
  8. bcoombes <bcoombes@orangedotnet> wrote:
    > Andrew Halliwell wrote:
    >> bcoombes <bcoombes@orangedotnet> wrote:
    >>And why did you include "X-Org SunOS rootkit"? SunOS is a fullblown...Yawn

    >
    >
    > A Linux-based system is a modular Unix-like operating system. It derives
    > much of its basic design from principles established in Unix during the
    > 1970s and 1980s.


    I know the history, idiot.
    It doesn't prove anything I said was incorrect or even slightly wrong
    however.

    Now go away play in the traffic like a good little boy.
    --
    | | |
    | Andrew Halliwell BSc | "ARSE! GERLS!! DRINK! DRINK! DRINK!!!" |
    | in | "THAT WOULD BE AN ECUMENICAL MATTER!...FECK!!!! |
    | Computer Science | - Father Jack in "Father Ted" |
    Andrew Halliwell, May 22, 2009
    #8
  9. Conor

    Conor Guest

    In article <>, Andrew Halliwell says...
    >
    > Oh, not impervious... Any old script could be downloaded...
    > But how would the script convince someone to run it?
    > "when downloading this file, please ensure that you chmod it to executable
    > with the command chmod +x iwillwreckyourcomputer and then run it"?


    With "ease of use" being the latest thing to be addressed on Linux,
    it's now no different to Vista - click on a link to run it, OK to the
    privelige prompt and BAM.

    > Good luck on targetting THAT, because linux is such a diverse little OS


    No it isn't. Most distros are Debian or Redhat based.


    > How many viruses are there in the wild for linux again?
    > Hell, how many have their been in linux's entire history?
    > Compare and contrast with windows and MacOS.


    Just proves how worthless Linux's market share is.


    --
    Conor

    I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't
    looking good either. - Scott Adams
    Conor, May 22, 2009
    #9
  10. Conor

    Conor Guest

    In article <>, Andrew Halliwell says...

    > Thing about those is... how many of them require local access to install
    > them? (most of the rootkits fall into that category, I imagine)
    > How many work on social rather than network security by having the user
    > download and run the program manually?
    >

    Quite a few. Linux users are as stupid as Windows ones.

    > The Apache worm isn't specific to linux, apache runs on BSD, windows and mac
    > as well, so how many of those aren't specific to linux?
    >

    Irrelevent. Apache is the default server app in Linux.

    > If you seperated them out into categories of "linux only", "auto-infection"
    > and "manual infection/local access required", how would they be split?
    >
    > And why did you include "X-Org SunOS rootkit"? SunOS is a fullblown
    > commercial unix, not linux. Completely different beast.
    >

    Irrelevent.

    > In fact... As you included one, how many more of those are unix malware
    > rather than linux?
    >

    Irrelevent.
    > And of course, the final question... How many of those worked by exploits
    > that no longer exist?

    One could argue the same about many of the Windows ones seeing as
    patches were released MONTHS before exploits that Sasser/Conficker etc
    used.


    --
    Conor

    I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't
    looking good either. - Scott Adams
    Conor, May 22, 2009
    #10
  11. Conor

    Hadron Guest

    bcoombes <bcoombes@orangedotnet> writes:

    > Andrew Halliwell wrote:
    >> bcoombes <bcoombes@orangedotnet> wrote:
    >>> Andrew Halliwell wrote:
    >>>> bcoombes <bcoombes@orangedotnet> wrote:
    >>>> And why did you include "X-Org SunOS rootkit"? SunOS is a fullblown...Yawn
    >>>
    >>> A Linux-based system is a modular Unix-like operating system. It derives
    >>> much of its basic design from principles established in Unix during the
    >>> 1970s and 1980s.

    >>
    >> I know the history and I'm an idiot.

    >
    > True.
    >


    Most honest thing I ever saw that kid with the degree ever post.

    --
    In view of all the deadly computer viruses that have been spreading
    lately, Weekend Update would like to remind you: when you link up to
    another computer, you’re linking up to every computer that that
    computer has ever linked up to. — Dennis Miller
    Hadron, May 22, 2009
    #11
  12. Conor

    JEDIDIAH Guest

    On 2009-05-22, Conor <> wrote:
    > In article <>, Andrew Halliwell says...

    [deletia]
    >> How many viruses are there in the wild for linux again?
    >> Hell, how many have their been in linux's entire history?
    >> Compare and contrast with windows and MacOS.

    >
    > Just proves how worthless Linux's market share is.


    ....as if "lack of marketshare" ever protected a platform before.

    That's kind of the whole point of viruses. They don't need the
    largest available target population. They just need one that is
    accomodating to the spread of viruses. Put up any sort of barriers
    and potential infestations are quickly castrated.

    --
    "Microsoft looks at new ideas, they don't evaluate whether
    the idea will move the industry forward, they ask, |||
    'how will it help us sell more copies of Windows?'" / | \

    -- Bill Gates
    JEDIDIAH, May 22, 2009
    #12
  13. Conor

    JEDIDIAH Guest

    On 2009-05-22, Conor <> wrote:
    > In article <>, Andrew Halliwell says...


    [deletia]

    >> The Apache worm isn't specific to linux, apache runs on BSD, windows and mac
    >> as well, so how many of those aren't specific to linux?
    >>

    > Irrelevent. Apache is the default server app in Linux.


    Apache isn't the default anything in Linux.

    If someone wants a webserver they might install it.

    [deletia]

    It's no more "default" on Linux than it is on Windows really.

    --
    "Microsoft looks at new ideas, they don't evaluate whether
    the idea will move the industry forward, they ask, |||
    'how will it help us sell more copies of Windows?'" / | \

    -- Bill Gates
    JEDIDIAH, May 22, 2009
    #13
  14. Conor

    Raj Kundra Guest

    "bcoombes" <bcoombes@orangedotnet> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Conor wrote:
    >> In article <>, Andrew Halliwell says...
    >>
    >>> Thing about those is... how many of them require local access to install
    >>> them? (most of the rootkits fall into that category, I imagine)
    >>> How many work on social rather than network security by having the user
    >>> download and run the program manually?
    >>>

    >> Quite a few. Linux users are as stupid as Windows ones.
    >>

    > LMAO, possibly more stupid because of the 'Linux is perfect' blinkers most
    > of them seem to wear.



    Not as bad as ones with 'APPLE IS PERFECT, blinkers.
    They actually pay over the odds for same OS, compared with Linux guys paying
    pennies or free.
    Raj Kundra, May 22, 2009
    #14
  15. Conor

    JEDIDIAH Guest

    On 2009-05-22, bcoombes <bcoombes@orangedotnet> wrote:
    > Conor wrote:
    >> In article <>, Andrew Halliwell says...
    >>
    >>> Thing about those is... how many of them require local access to install
    >>> them? (most of the rootkits fall into that category, I imagine)
    >>> How many work on social rather than network security by having the user
    >>> download and run the program manually?
    >>>

    >> Quite a few. Linux users are as stupid as Windows ones.
    >>

    > LMAO, possibly more stupid because of the 'Linux is perfect' blinkers most of
    > them seem to wear.


    ...not "perfect", just a whole lot better.

    Although this is not something that is limited to Linux.

    EVERYONE does it better. It's been like this for a long time.

    Peddling mindless fear doesn't really do anyone any good. OTOH, if you've
    got some real insights then the rest of the Unix using planet can mull it over
    and provide countermeasures (assuming they haven't already done this).

    --
    "Microsoft looks at new ideas, they don't evaluate whether
    the idea will move the industry forward, they ask, |||
    'how will it help us sell more copies of Windows?'" / | \

    -- Bill Gates
    JEDIDIAH, May 22, 2009
    #15
  16. Conor

    Hadron Guest

    "Raj Kundra" <raj@REM0VE THISkundracomputers.co.uk> writes:

    > "bcoombes" <bcoombes@orangedotnet> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> Conor wrote:
    >>> In article <>, Andrew Halliwell says...
    >>>
    >>>> Thing about those is... how many of them require local access to install
    >>>> them? (most of the rootkits fall into that category, I imagine)
    >>>> How many work on social rather than network security by having the user
    >>>> download and run the program manually?
    >>>>
    >>> Quite a few. Linux users are as stupid as Windows ones.
    >>>

    >> LMAO, possibly more stupid because of the 'Linux is perfect' blinkers most
    >> of them seem to wear.

    >
    >
    > Not as bad as ones with 'APPLE IS PERFECT, blinkers.
    > They actually pay over the odds for same OS, compared with Linux guys paying
    > pennies or free.
    >
    >
    >


    Its the apps and the desktop experience they pay for. The underlying OS
    is of little consequence to them.

    If you have used a Mac you will know what is meant. It is incredibly
    well tuned and consistent across applications.

    --
    In view of all the deadly computer viruses that have been spreading
    lately, Weekend Update would like to remind you: when you link up to
    another computer, you’re linking up to every computer that that
    computer has ever linked up to. — Dennis Miller
    Hadron, May 22, 2009
    #16
  17. bcoombes wrote:

    > Andrew Halliwell wrote:
    >> bcoombes <bcoombes@orangedotnet> wrote:
    >>> Andrew Halliwell wrote:
    >>>> bcoombes <bcoombes@orangedotnet> wrote:
    >>>> And why did you include "X-Org SunOS rootkit"? SunOS is a
    >>>> fullblown...Yawn
    >>>
    >>> A Linux-based system is a modular Unix-like operating system. It
    >>> derives much of its basic design from principles established in Unix
    >>> during the 1970s and 1980s.

    >>
    >> I know the history and I'm an idiot.

    >
    > True.


    Oh, looky looky.

    A windows using retard editing posts.

    Who would have imagined...
    --
    Warning: 10 days have passed since your last Windows reinstall.
    Peter Köhlmann, May 22, 2009
    #17
  18. Hadron wrote:

    > bcoombes <bcoombes@orangedotnet> writes:
    >
    >> Andrew Halliwell wrote:
    >>> bcoombes <bcoombes@orangedotnet> wrote:
    >>>> Andrew Halliwell wrote:
    >>>>> bcoombes <bcoombes@orangedotnet> wrote:
    >>>>> And why did you include "X-Org SunOS rootkit"? SunOS is a
    >>>>> fullblown...Yawn
    >>>>
    >>>> A Linux-based system is a modular Unix-like operating system. It
    >>>> derives much of its basic design from principles established in Unix
    >>>> during the 1970s and 1980s.
    >>>
    >>> I know the history and I'm an idiot.

    >>
    >> True.
    >>

    >
    > Most honest thing I ever saw that kid with the degree ever post.
    >


    You mean you saw one of your own (windows using retards) editing posts
    again?

    No wonder you have to applaud that cretin
    --
    Just out of curiosity does this actually mean something or have some
    of the few remaining bits of your brain just evaporated?
    Peter Köhlmann, May 22, 2009
    #18
  19. Conor

    Conor Guest

    In article <>, JEDIDIAH says...

    > That's kind of the whole point of viruses. They don't need the
    > largest available target population. They just need one that is
    > accomodating to the spread of viruses. Put up any sort of barriers
    > and potential infestations are quickly castrated.


    It's a good job Microsoft released Vista then and also placed IE7 and
    IE8 in a sandbox under Vista and Win7.

    --
    Conor

    I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't
    looking good either. - Scott Adams
    Conor, May 22, 2009
    #19
  20. On Fri, 22 May 2009 15:41:44 +0100
    Conor <> wrote:

    > In article <>, Andrew Halliwell says...
    > >
    > > Oh, not impervious... Any old script could be downloaded...
    > > But how would the script convince someone to run it?
    > > "when downloading this file, please ensure that you chmod it to executable
    > > with the command chmod +x iwillwreckyourcomputer and then run it"?

    >
    > With "ease of use" being the latest thing to be addressed on Linux,
    > it's now no different to Vista - click on a link to run it, OK to the
    > privelige prompt and BAM.


    Except that you don't install Linux software by downloading it from a
    random website, you get it from a trusted source with the distro's
    package manager.

    > > Good luck on targetting THAT, because linux is such a diverse little OS

    >
    > No it isn't. Most distros are Debian or Redhat based.
    >
    > > How many viruses are there in the wild for linux again?
    > > Hell, how many have their been in linux's entire history?
    > > Compare and contrast with windows and MacOS.

    >
    > Just proves how worthless Linux's market share is.


    So in one paragraph you claim Linux viruses are as rife as Vista ones,
    two paragraphs later you think Linux is too worthless to have a
    significant virus threat.

    --
    TH * http://www.realh.co.uk
    Tony Houghton, May 22, 2009
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. --= Ö§âmâ ßíñ Këñ0ßí =--

    Holey Moley! Micro$oft Recommends Linux?

    --= Ö§âmâ ßíñ Këñ0ßí =--, Dec 29, 2003, in forum: Computer Security
    Replies:
    19
    Views:
    743
    Edwin
    Jan 12, 2004
  2. Crash Gordon

    Printer recommends?

    Crash Gordon, Feb 13, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    321
    Michael Johnson, PE
    Feb 13, 2006
  3. JedMeister
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    274
    Patrick Bold
    Sep 2, 2004
  4. Tarkus
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    377
    Tarkus
    Feb 13, 2008
  5. Simon Finnigan

    Re: Micoshaft recommends Linux

    Simon Finnigan, May 22, 2009, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    76
    Views:
    1,555
    Hu Min Pyook
    May 27, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page