Stop Microsoft
Operating Systems => Linux and UNIX => Topic started by: sway on 16 December 2001, 07:15
-
Look! my first topic, i am cool now. anyways.. my main reason i think *nix is 'leet' would be:
i'm not really into warez at all, so i like free software, that is one thing Windows doesn't offer very well, and MacOSX has a good amount of freeware, but not many of the original MacOS based applications are free.
[ December 16, 2001: Message edited by: sway ]
-
Small side note: Mac OS X is UNIX. Here's the uname -a output:
Darwin powerbook.fuckmicrosoft.com 5.1 Darwin Kernel Version 5.1: Tue Oct 30 00:06:34 PST 2001; root:xnu/xnu-201.5.obj~1/RELEASE_PPC Power Macintosh powerpc
All the freely-downloadable open-source stuff available for other UNIXes work on here, too. They may need minor patches to compile, but if you don't want to do that (or aren't qualified to, like me), chances are someone's already done it for you (like the Fink project).
-
UNIX is a true multi-tasking system: it doesn't fake it like that other OS.
It's a true multi-user OS: every member of the family can share one 'puter without having someone foul up your files.
It doesn't treat you like an idiot, like that other OS.
Its apps are way cooler, and most of them are free.
It's much better suited to today's computing environment with greater security, not like that other OS that was created for one PC, one user, no networking.
Greater range in choice, not like that other OS where one version is distinguished from another mainly by the level of bloat.
It's not that other OS.
-
quote:
Originally posted by The Webmaster:
Small side note: Mac OS X is UNIX. Here's the uname -a output:
Darwin powerbook.fuckmicrosoft.com 5.1 Darwin Kernel Version 5.1: Tue Oct 30 00:06:34 PST 2001; root:xnu/xnu-201.5.obj~1/RELEASE_PPC Power Macintosh powerpc
All the freely-downloadable open-source stuff available for other UNIXes work on here, too. They may need minor patches to compile, but if you don't want to do that (or aren't qualified to, like me), chances are someone's already done it for you (like the Fink project).
yes, i run MacOSX at the moment on my iMac, and i do know about fink (and love it almost as much as the QNX package manager)
maybe i should of just pointed out to the original MacOS based applications? not many of them are free :P
-
quote:
Originally posted by jtpenrod:
It's a true multi-user OS: every member of the family can share one 'puter without having someone foul up your files..
My windows 2000 box can do that
quote:
Originally posted by jtpenrod:It's much better suited to today's computing environment with greater security, not like that other OS that was created for one PC, one user, no networking.
Windows securty is is as good as the admin of the box, just like unix.
One user? One pc? no networking? What are you talking about?
-
Windows and BeOS are true multi-tasking OSes also.
Sure, Win9x has memory leaks..but Win2K and XP don't. Windows NT actually has some *nix technology embedded into the Kernel. Windows NT is practically a user friendly variant of *nix with a decent GUI and mainstream hardware/software support. 90% of the people who bash Microsoft Windows has a low end computer that can't run Windows worth a damn, that is why they choose *nix. Hell, I have tried Mandrake and RedHat Linux and I think thier GUI is awful(hence why it is fast). If you pay attention to it you will notice that the GUI in those 2 OSes were inspired by Windows(they even have a little bar at the bottom of the screen that works like the Windows Taskbar/start menu). I'm not saying *nix isn't bad because it really isn't..but Windows isn't near as bad as the *nix geeks make it out to be. If Windows was so bad then why does it hold over 75% of the market? Windows had to be something to reach such a high stature in the market. People don't buy shit if it isn't worth a damn. Remember, Windows can do everything *nix can do and more. (http://smile.gif)
-
quote:
Originally posted by <Zombie9920>:
If Windows was so bad then why does it hold over 75% of the market? Windows had to be something to reach such a high stature in the market. People don't buy shit if it isn't worth a damn. Remember, Windows can do everything *nix can do and more. (http://smile.gif)
Zombie, I have to say that you are full of shit on almost every count. Why does windows hold 75% of the "desktop" market? 1) marketing, 2) questionable practices with hardware vendors. Windows can only do a small percentage of what *NIX can do (without installing many many tools and apps not included with Windows). And even with the POSIX utilities it doesn't remotely resemble UNIX. Still has brain dead piping, redirection, process/job management. Hell, they don't even include a compiler, gotta pay extra for that!
And the GUIs (Window Managers) that you refer to are only a couple of many Window Managers included. People coming from the dark side might be a little more comfortable with the ones you mention but you have a choice.
[ December 16, 2001: Message edited by: VoidMain ]
-
Windows holds about 90% of the desktop market. When you combine Desktops and servers then it holds about 75% of the whole market. In the regular server area more people use Linix over NT because of NTs outrageous licensing fee. In the high end server market(people with Itanium, SPARC, SUN, etc. machines) Unix is usually the OS of choice(Windows XP 64Bit is becoming a little popular, but it has a long way to go before it can overthrow Unix in the High End server market). The server/high end server combination is what throws Microsoft's total marketshare down by about 15%.
-
quote:
Originally posted by <Zombie9920>:
Windows holds about 90% of the desktop market. When you combine Desktops and servers then it holds about 75% of the whole market. In the regular server area more people use Linix over NT because of NTs outrageous licensing fee. In the high end server market(people with Itanium, SPARC, SUN, etc. machines) Unix is usually the OS of choice(Windows XP 64Bit is becoming a little popular, but it has a long way to go before it can overthrow Unix in the High End server market). The server/high end server combination is what throws Microsoft's total marketshare down by about 15%.
What the hell do you mean UNIX is the OS of choice for high end architectures? It's the ONLY choice! Microsoft pretty much only runs on x86 these days.
There *is* one OS that will run on nearly every architecture out there and that is Linux. It runs on PPC, x86, Alpha, Sparc, Motorola, etc. We even installed it on our IBM 390 mainframe. If you want a 32 processor UltraSparc, you run Solaris, Windows can't run on it. If you want to run a V-Class HP system you run HP-UX, Windows can't run on it. If you want an IBM RS/6000 you run AIX, Windows can't run on it. If you want SGI you run IRIX, Windows won't run on it. Furthermore, why the hell would anyone want to run Windows on one of those systems???
Linux runs on many of the architectures ranging from AXIS web cameras and palm devices all the way to mainframe platforms.
And you want to build the worlds fastest supercomputer? Use Linux, even Big Blue has resigned to that fact: http://news.zdnet.co.uk/story/0,,t269-s2083758,00.html (http://news.zdnet.co.uk/story/0,,t269-s2083758,00.html)
And I defy you to find Windows making a machine on this list hum: http://www.top500.org/list/2001/11/ (http://www.top500.org/list/2001/11/)
And you just can't have this kind of fun with Windows: http://tux.anu.edu.au/Projects/Beowulf/ (http://tux.anu.edu.au/Projects/Beowulf/)
[ December 17, 2001: Message edited by: VoidMain ]
-
Hey, zombie. Yeah, I'm talking to you, dumbass. Windows has it's large marketshare because of something called a "monopoly". Or did you fail to realize that since you're obviously living in a box?
Yes, they have the highest market share. No way in hell do they have the best product. And they don't innovate, either; they buy their ideas from somebody else. They have never introduced a new idea to the market that wasn't bought, licensed, or simply stolen from somebody else.
Windows? True multi-tasking? Bull-fucking-shit. Oh, yeah, you can load more than one program at once, but WinNT will not handle, say, a thousand simultaneous web hits with the same grace that *NIX does (assuming, of course, WinNT doesn't crash under the pressure).
Oh, and that part about Windows NT being secure? WHAT PLANET DID YOU COME FROM YOU FUCKHEAD??? Windows does not compare in any way to the security of *NIX.
Oh, and multiuser? This goes back to the security thing. Microsoft sucks at security because they simply DO NOT understand the concept at any level.
-
Hmmm, you expect me to take the words of a name calling simpleton seriously? Whatever man.
BTW, I'm glad you mentioned OS security. Whether you like it or not, every OS has security faults.
Here is 1 of the dozens of security flaes that I can dig up for Linux.
http://www.securityfocus.com/archive/1/242750 (http://www.securityfocus.com/archive/1/242750)
If you are smart enough to comprehend what that page is saying and you want to see more Linux security flaws I will be more than happy to throw some more at you. ;)
-
Typo correction from last post... flaes = flaws.
-
quote:
Originally posted by VoidMain:
What the hell do you mean UNIX is the OS of choice for high end architectures? It's the ONLY choice! Microsoft pretty much only runs on x86 these days.
There *is* one OS that will run on nearly every architecture out there and that is Linux. It runs on PPC, x86, Alpha, Sparc, Motorola, etc. We even installed it on our IBM 390 mainframe. If you want a 32 processor UltraSparc, you run Solaris, Windows can't run on it. If you want to run a V-Class HP system you run HP-UX, Windows can't run on it. If you want an IBM RS/6000 you run AIX, Windows can't run on it. If you want SGI you run IRIX, Windows won't run on it. Furthermore, why the hell would anyone want to run Windows on one of those systems???
Linux runs on many of the architectures ranging from AXIS web cameras and palm devices all the way to mainframe platforms.
And you want to build the worlds fastest supercomputer? Use Linux, even Big Blue has resigned to that fact: http://news.zdnet.co.uk/story/0,,t269-s2083758,00.html (http://news.zdnet.co.uk/story/0,,t269-s2083758,00.html)
And I defy you to find Windows making a machine on this list hum: http://www.top500.org/list/2001/11/ (http://www.top500.org/list/2001/11/)
And you just can't have this kind of fun with Windows: http://tux.anu.edu.au/Projects/Beowulf/ (http://tux.anu.edu.au/Projects/Beowulf/)
[ December 17, 2001: Message edited by: VoidMain ]
Windows XP 64bit runs on most of the high end server machines you mentioned above, however you are correct about it not supporting 32 processors.
-
quote:
Originally posted by <Zombie9920>:
BTW, I'm glad you mentioned OS security. Whether you like it or not, every OS has security faults.
Here is 1 of the dozens of security flaes that I can dig up for Linux.
http://www.securityfocus.com/archive/1/242750 (http://www.securityfocus.com/archive/1/242750)
You are correct that every OS has security flaws and in order to stay secure one must stay up with all the CERT announcements and configure their system securely. The particular one you cite is regarding a bug in WU-FTPD (not UNIX or Linux). FTP on any system is inherently insecure because it uses clear text passwords (great sniffing fun) and although some Linux systems include WU-FTPD most good admins turn it off and use SSH/SCP when possible. I believe you can even run WU-FTPD on Win*. I did have a couple of systems that were vulnerable but had them patched the *same* day that the announcement was made. You are at the mercy of MS to get patches for their holes. Took MS long enough to even include an FTP Server, how long will it take them to implement SSH?
Now let's try one for Windows. Most of the muckety-muck mid/upper level managers hold the Gartner Group in high regard for technology reviews. I find this one extremely pleasing:
http://www3.gartner.com/DisplayDocument?doc_cd=101034 (http://www3.gartner.com/DisplayDocument?doc_cd=101034)
I've been having much fun converting companies from IIS to *NIX/Apache.
And another thing. I have YET to get a virus in ANY flavor of *NIX. That right there is the biggest security issue on earth if you ask me. I love watching the NT shops scramble every time a new I-LOVE-YOU variant comes out! Many laughs!
[ December 17, 2001: Message edited by: VoidMain ]
-
quote:
My windows 2000 box can do that
This past summer, Steve Ballmer (yes, THAT Steve Ballmer) described in an interview how his household had two 'puters between himself, his wife, and kids. He admitted that, prior to getting Win XP, files were being screwed up by this sharing. This wouldn't have happened had he been using *NIX since each user would have had his or her own account, with their own passwords. According to Ballmer himself, no version of Windows prior to XP had this feature. Was he lying?
quote:
Windows securty is is as good as the admin of the box, just like unix.
No *NIX has the vast array of exploits that Windows has: Outlook worms, macro virii that sneak in on Word documents, Excell spreadsheets, Powerpoint slides. Just last week, four Israeli script kiddies (ages 14 and 15) launched the Goner worm. Within a day, this thing had spread half-way around the world. The last *NIX worm that did that was the Morris worm back in the early 1980s. And Morris, himself, was no script kiddie.
quote:
One user? One pc? no networking? What are you talking about?
Here is exactly what I'm talking about: UNIX was originally designed as an OS for mainframes. This meant multiple users. The UNIX file system incorporates "accounts" to keep one user from harming another's files. Users may be bundled together into "groups". Thus, every directory and file has three levels of permissions: User, group, and world. Each user sets his or her own level of permissions to determine who will, or will not, be allowed access to those files. The user also sets three other permissions: readable, writeable, and executable (nine total permissions). These file permissions may be overridden only by the superuser: noone else. This keeps all the system files protected and straight. MS-DOS, on the other hand, was intended as an op-sys for the first small computers, usually running Intel 8085s or Zilog Z-80s. With an eight bit word length, and 16 bit addressing, there was no way more than one person could use it at a time. Therefore, file permissions were not incorporated. In MS-DOS and Windows, *every* user is the superuser. Try this: go into Windows Explorer, click on the Windows folder, select some critical file (ending with .com, .sys, .dat) then click on "delete" and see what happens. If you let it, it *will* delete it. Hell, try deleting the entire Windows folder - it'll do that too. Try that on a Linux rig - or any other *NIX rig - and you'll get an access denied warning, and it won't do it. Only the superuser could do a thing like that (which is why you should avoid superuser status unless it's absolutely necessary AND you know what you're doing). File permissions didn't reappear until Win XP; and, of course, they're touting it as something grand and glorious. :eek: They are only putting back that which they took out 25 years ago.
This wasn't such a big deal until the Internet came along. Now *every* Windows rig that connects to the 'Net may not have just a single user, whether you know it or not. If some cracker gets in, he's *automatically* the superuser. He can get your rig to do his bidding with no trouble at all. That's why Windows rigs are so frequently involved in DDoS attacks, that's why Windows runs all that lovely spyware and adware. Download that "freebie" app and, without your knowledge, you're running a server that's serving up all your personal data. There is no such thing as Linux spyware. Why? Because, without root priveledge, the spyware app can't "phone home" without your knowing about it and specifically authorizing it to do so. If it were to attempt to change file permissions, you'd know about that too. And it's a damn fine line between spyware and a Trojan. Windows systems were *never* designed to network with other computers. Some 50000 WinViruses and still counting testifies to that with far more eloquence than I.
-
Good post penrod but you're going to get flamed on the file permissions thing. File permissions existed on WinNT 3.5-4.0 and Win2000 using NTFS filsystems. But they certainly didn't do a good job of implementing it.
-
Don't get me started on file permissions. BAck when I was running Win2K I had all of my MP3s, important documents, pics, etc. password protected. I was ignorant and I didn't have any AV software on the system because I thought I would never need it. Anyhow, I got an E-Mail worm that screwed up my boot sector and I had to do a repair install of Win2K after I cleaned the virus from the boot sector. When I finished installing Win2K again I was locked out of every file I had protected because I was setup with a new hostname number. No matter what I did I couldn't get back into my files, I couldn't delete the files or anything. So I eventually did a low level format on my hard drive and started with a clean slate. I lost over 40gig worth of stuff because of NTFS file security. :(
-
quote:
Originally posted by <Zombie9920>:
Don't get me started on file permissions. BAck when I was running Win2K I had all of my MP3s, important documents, pics, etc. password protected. I was ignorant and I didn't have any AV software on the system because I thought I would never need it. Anyhow, I got an E-Mail worm that screwed up my boot sector and I had to do a repair install of Win2K after I cleaned the virus from the boot sector. When I finished installing Win2K again I was locked out of every file I had protected because I was setup with a new hostname number. No matter what I did I couldn't get back into my files, I couldn't delete the files or anything. So I eventually did a low level format on my hard drive and started with a clean slate. I lost over 40gig worth of stuff because of NTFS file security. :(
Again, I don't want to defend microsoft because they suck but... What do you mean you password protected your files? I assume you mean you set the file permissions so that only you could read them and when you reinstalled the OS your SID changed in the SAM. Did you try and "take ownership" on all the directories that denied you access? And then recursively set the permissions to "Everyone:FullControl"? If you used NTFS you should have had no problem recovering them (unless of course the drive was more damaged than you say).
Hell, I can pull a drive out of any NT server or workstation and plug it into any other running system as a secondary drive and get at anything I want. As long as you are logged in as administrator you can take ownership of everything and then change the permissions. I never did use Win2k much so maybe they incorporated filesystem encryption which required a passphrase? I can't imagine I would have missed that one.
[ December 17, 2001: Message edited by: VoidMain ]
-
I tried everything, I tried to take full ownership, etc.
It simply would not let me into the files because the number I was given after my name didn't match the number that was used to encrypt the files. I even tried to change the numbers in the administrator account to match the ones I was originally using and it still didn't work. I was basically screwed. It really pissed me off badly. I still use NTFS but I learned a lesson, before doing a re-installation/repair installation of Win2K make sure you remove the file permissions and I also learned not to use Outlook Express as an E-Mail client because it automatically opens messages when they are highlighted. Now I always use AV software(and I update Virus Definitions regularly) and I use Outlook 2002(comes with Office XP) as an E-Mail client because it doesn't open a message until you double click it. I don't use Win2K anymore(I use Windows XP Coroporate Edition) but I'm sure that the same file lock out fiasco could happen in XP.
-
Typo ~ Coroporate = Corporate.
-
Hmmm, I guess I did miss something. A quick google search reveals what you say to be true. I didn't realize Win2k included filesystem encryption. And yes, I can see where that could be a BIG problem in the event of a hard drive crash, unless you have backups, which of course make encrypting your data pointless, unless of course the backups are encrypted as well. Well, as much as I would like to I don't think I could add that to my list of reasons why I hate Microsoft. This would be a problem on any encrypted filesystem in any OS. It's not good security if it can easily be bypassed.
-
It is a good idea for anybody running Win2K/XP using NTFS to set permissions on files/folder to burn the files/folders off on a CD(before you encrypt them) so if something like this ever happens to you, you will have backups of your files.
-
Hey Zombie,
quote:
Originally posted by <Zombie9920>:
I also learned not to use Outlook Express as an E-Mail client because it automatically opens messages when they are highlighted.
In Outlook Express under 95 and 98 so I would guess Win2k, ME, XP also you can turn off the preview pane by simply going into the view menu and changing the Layout options. Then there will be no more automatic opening of email. I have no idea why MS chose to make the preview pane the default but that single "wonderful" feature has caused millions of people to get virus's that they would not have otherwise gotten.
Later
Centurian
-
quote:
Originally posted by Centurian:
Then there will be no more automatic opening of email. I have no idea why MS chose to make the preview pane the default but that single "wonderful" feature has caused millions of people to get virus's that they would not have otherwise gotten.
I have the preview pane turned on in KDE mail and have received many messages containing a virus but to this day I have yet to be infected. And I have no virus software. Hmmm, how could this be? (http://smile.gif)
-
I have win2k and I have yet to get a virus. Your box is only as good as the person who is administrating it. Don't get me wrong I use linux to, if I had to choose servers for a company it would be linux cause of the money microsoft charges you. I still prefer 2k to linux though :D
-
quote:
Originally posted by Foney:
I have win2k and I have yet to get a virus. Your box is only as good as the person who is administrating it. Don't get me wrong I use linux to, if I had to choose servers for a company it would be linux cause of the money microsoft charges you. I still prefer 2k to linux though :D
Consider yourself lucky. In the corporate world, at least those companies that use MS OSs and escpecially if they run Exchange/Outlook scramble every few months to clean up the latest viru that spread faster than they can kill it. Keeping virus software updated seems not to be very helpful as the virus has done it's deed by the time new DAT files are created.
And Microsoft isn't the fastest at putting out patches to stop this (because it's a fundamental flaw, not one easily patched). And even when they do put out patches companies running MS products rarely apply them company wide. They would rather scramble like chickens with their heads cut off.
What really amazes me is that someone hasn't exploited the little email thing to do some *serious* damage which could have happened with no more effort than they already expended. The last one to go around for certain software packages (such as zonealarm) and deleted it if it found it. It could have just as easily done some *serious* damage.
If it were me, I would send a virus out to remove Outlook and install a better (non-MS) email package so these email viru would stop. It would save the MS shops a lot of work and it would save the rest of the world a lot of network bandwidth.
Hey wait a minute... Maybe this email problem was implemented by MS on purpose. Yeah, I think they call it ".NET", or "Hailstorm" or something like that...
[ December 17, 2001: Message edited by: VoidMain ]
-
Thanks VoidMain for the heads-up on that. I was going by what Steve Ballmer said in an interview. If you can't trust a honcho like Ballmer, then who can you trust? ;) :D
-
quote:
Originally posted by VoidMain:
And Microsoft isn't the fastest at putting out patches to stop this (because it's a fundamental flaw, not one easily patched). And even when they do put out patches companies running MS products rarely apply them company wide. They would rather scramble like chickens with their heads cut off.
[ December 17, 2001: Message edited by: VoidMain ]
Well never in my experince has a patch for microsoft taken any longer to release then a patch for any other OS. As for the companys running Ms rarely apply patches, goes back to the statement that your OS is only as good as the person running it.
-
I still havent seen a good arguement on why *nix is better than NT/2k. :confused:
-
quote:
Originally posted by Foney:
I still havent seen a good arguement on why *nix is better than NT/2k. :confused:
You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink (unless you're Bill Gates).
-
quote:
Originally posted by Foney:
I still havent seen a good arguement on why *nix is better than NT/2k. :confused:
This statement just goes to show, my friends, that there are no stupid questions, but there are a LOT of inquisitive idiots.
(Oh, and VoidMain -- wtf???)
-
well give me a good arguement on why *nix is better. List some reasons.
[ December 18, 2001: Message edited by: Foney ]
-
Guilty buy association.
Very simply put, *.nix users are a friendlier lot. There is a lot more help out there for newbies like myself. Without help from the many *.lugs, I would not have the smooth, reliable OS that I do.
Try to get help from Mycrowsauce without first obtaining a pissport. I think DOT NOT. I don't wish to get tangled in that NET.
I've come to this forum on a quest for information. I want to know why I cannot control, organize and OWN my Windows box, like I can control, organize and OWN my Linux box.
Glad to be here. That is all for now. I'll resume sandbagging.
Happy Holidays,
farmer6re9
-
quote:
Originally posted by farmer6re9:
Try to get help from Mycrowsauce without first obtaining a pissport. I think DOT NOT. I don't wish to get tangled in that NET.
I've come to this forum on a quest for information. I want to know why I cannot control, organize and OWN my Windows box, like I can control, organize and OWN my Linux box.
What on earth are you talking about!?? What windows OS have you tried? Cause I know you haven't tried 2000 with that statement.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Foney:
What on earth are you talking about!?? What windows OS have you tried? Cause I know you haven't tried 2000 with that statement.
Do you own your copy of Win2k? I think not, and as a matter of fact you can only put it on one machine. I have 8 machines on my home network. Hmmm, how much would that set me back? Let alone if I wanted run a copy of NT Server w/IIS/SQL Server and expose one of them to the Internet? How much is that going to set me back? Now if I want to write some DLLs for my nice shiney IIS server I guess I'll have to buy a copy of VC or VB, how much is that going to set me back? Let alone when I get done with this I have a slow piece of shit IIS server that any 15 year old can hack in to.
I have already listed *many* reasons why Win* (including Win2k) is inferior in several message threads. I'm not going to repeat them. But then MS users have a hard time reading, hence "Video Professor".
-
My reasons:
*NIX has better multitasking than WinNT (including 2K and XP)
*NIX has better security
*NIX is better at allocation of memory
*NIX doesn't crash as much
*NIX variants can be obtained for free, as opposed to the draconian costs associated with WinNT
*NIX can be scaled down for specific tasks - with NT you have to take the whole salami, whether you want/need it or not
*NIX runs on more platforms
etc, etc . . .
-
Yes I have win 2k and yes I have linux. And I am always racing with bugtraq to keep my linux box secure. And any teen can hack win2k? how about any teen can hack linux with a cpp book and piss in the code. And what about when a box is owned on linux? say bye bye to your logs. As with 2k logs can be locked even when a machine is completely owned remotely.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Foney:
Yes I have win 2k and yes I have linux. And I am always racing with bugtraq to keep my linux box secure. And any teen can hack win2k? how about any teen can hack linux with a cpp book and piss in the code. And what about when a box is owned on linux? say bye bye to your logs. As with 2k logs can be locked even when a machine is completely owned remotely.
Hmmm, that must by why Gartner (usually nazi toward MS and well respected by MS nazi mid/upper level management) has this recommendation:
http://www3.gartner.com/DisplayDocument?doc_cd=101034 (http://www3.gartner.com/DisplayDocument?doc_cd=101034)
And this next one has been a fundamental flaw for years. I see they finally have a patch, which involves installing IE6 and a patch of course. For the long period of time before this patch Microsoft refused to recognize it as a bug (that's what they do when caught with their pants down wondering how to fix a big one). So this is an example of them not getting off their duffs and getting a problem fixed in a timely fashion. In the open source world, this would have been licked in no time:
http://www.ntbugtraq.org/bid/3578 (http://www.ntbugtraq.org/bid/3578)
And the logs in NT/2k are absolute dribble. Let's see, I have 3 choices... System, Application, or Security. And that security log is a real winner.
And because I can do something in UNIX that I can't do in Win* called remote logging, someone owning a box can't get to the logs let alone all the other ways I can manipulate the logging facility. And with remote logging and a log parser sniffing for security events my log machine will page me (using utilities included with the OS). They've got no chance at getting too far.
[ December 19, 2001: Message edited by: VoidMain ]
-
And my favorite stupid WinNT/Win2k trick. Any normal user can become administrator without knowing the administrator password, assuming they can log on to the machine locally as a normal user, works great in a corporate desktop environment:
[list=A]- copy %WINDIR%\SYSTEM32\LOGON.SCR to %WINDIR%\SYSTEM32\LOGON.ORG
- copy %WINDIR%\SYSTEM32\CMD.EXE to %WINDIR%\SYSTEM32\LOGON.SCR
- logoff, in 15 minutes (900 secs) you will see a DOS window appear
- you can now create a new user with Windows NT administrator priviledges or change the Administrator password with utilities such as USRMGR.EXE, MUSRMGR.EXE or ADDUSERS.EXE (if you don't have them installed, copy them from CD/ResKit, or have someone email you their copy)
- after you are done, you can type exit in the DOS window
- copy %WINDIR%\SYSTEM32\LOGON.ORG to %WINDIR%\SYSTEM32\LOGON.SCR
Note: The above assumes the system you are trying to own is using the "default" logon screen saver. If it uses something else just replace "logon.scr" in the instructions above with whatever *.scr file is currently being used for the logon screen saver.
This is great corporate fun. And it's a handy way for administrators to recover from a forgotten administrator password. What security! Might as well save the bucks and stick with your lame Win9x for the desktops.
Side note for NT admins. This really can come in handy to recover a lost password so you don't have to reinstall the OS and lose all your SAM info. And if you can't copy the file as a normal user, yank the drive out and stick it in as a second drive in another running system, copy the CMD.EXE to the <SECONDDRIVE>:\WINNT\SYSTEM32\LOGON.SCR, then put the drive back in the original machine and wait for the CMD prompt to appear and do yer magic.
But don't mark me for "+" on the MS side. It's a "-" as it's a big security hole.
And yes if you have local access to a machine whether Win* or Linux you can own it, assuming it has a floppy and/or a cdrom (boot from floppy/cdrom, mount the root filesystem, have your way). If the system is physically chained to the desk and doesn't have a floppy/cdrom, you're only going to own the Win* box. To be able to bypass the security so blatantly on a running system is just laughable.
[ December 19, 2001: Message edited by: VoidMain ]
-
I think I'm going to enjoy this forum (http://tongue.gif)
There is a good mix of knowelege, skepticism and ignorance.
The ignorance is the part I'm enjoying right now.
-
But why should I change?? I have Win XP running fine, it has yet to crash, preview pane is turned off, built in Firewall, AV software installed. the pc just works, thats all I need. Can you name any reasons why the AVERAGE home user should use *NIX? NO better multitasking bull, most peps dont care, just some reasons why it is better.
-
quote:
Originally posted by condorstats:
But why should I change?? I have Win XP running fine, it has yet to crash, preview pane is turned off, built in Firewall, AV software installed. the pc just works, thats all I need. Can you name any reasons why the AVERAGE home user should use *NIX? NO better multitasking bull, most peps dont care, just some reasons why it is better.
If you ask this question then it's likely you will never see an OS other than MS. And I certainly won't try to convince you to switch because you are obviously content. But for those of us who have used MS operating systems extensively, and operating systems other than MS extensively, we know that the non-MS operating systems are superior and we do not want to have to pay Microsoft when we buy computers if we are not going to use Microsoft.
And we certainly don't want Microsoft to take over the Internet like they are trying to do and have already been somewhat successful at. The internet was created to more easily permit the flow of information, not for comercialization with all the marketing crap that goes on. In my OS I *can* use the preview pane in any of my mail programs and not have to worry about getting a virus, because viruses do not exist in my operating system. I don't have to turn off features because they are unsafe. My operating system is free, as in speech, and as in cost. I can look at the source code to make sure there is no funny business going on under the covers and am encouraged to do so. I can make changes to any part of the OS to suit my specific needs if I so choose, don't even have to ask. With Windows it's "WYSIWYG". If I choose to install it on as many systems as I like without paying a soul, I can, and I do.
Some of us have good reasons for not trusting microsoft any farther than we can throw them. Some of us have good reasons for believing Microsoft has way too much control over hardware vendors (and in many other areas).
And my OS has included with it, a better Solitaire game, among 100 other similar time wasters MS users so love, not that I play games. This is probably what 50% of home MS users do with their computers. You are content with your OS so why even ask the question? Some of us were so frustrated with the MS problems we mustered the energy to try something else out and we were rewarded.
I've listed at least one reason why MS operating systems are inferior in every one of my posts, look at the number of my posts at the bottom of this message, then hold down your Windows Key
-
I haver actually used Win 95 for over 4 years, and just installed, i also have Mandrake 8.0 installed, yet I fail to see the any reason why i should make a permanent move to Linux. I like Linux, its cool, its configfurable, and it is a good OS. But overall, as normal use goes, noether XP nor Mandrake 8.0 impress me more than the other.
-
A very comprehensive summation VoidMan, and one that should put to rest this thread. Sounds convincing to me, but I already reached this conclusion the hard way.
I'd like to add that gaming was not a priority on my PC either. HOWEVER, I got curious when I found Quake III arena on a secret little shelf in a local store. It was a Linux version. You just don't find too many of these little gems. To make a long story short, it operates much more efficiently in Linux than Win. I simply get MORE frags.
Thanks for visiting, many happy returns. It will be improving like FINE WINE over TIME. (http://smile.gif)
-
quote:
Originally posted by condorstats:
I haver actually used Win 95 for over 4 years, and just installed, i also have Mandrake 8.0 installed, yet I fail to see the any reason why i should make a permanent move to Linux.
Who's telling you to make a permanant move? Shit, I still have to use MS because there are a few apps out there that do not exist for Linux (that's not the fault of Linux). There is one R/C Flight Simulator that we really like and I've kept a copy of Win98 around just to run it. For everything else I use Linux. If all of the developers put out a Linux version along with an MS version (including MS) life would be good.
So you've used Win95 for four years. Do you also have four years on Linux? I have over 15 years working w/MS, ~10 years w/Linux (from the beginning), ~12 years with *NIX in general. I have to use and support both. I prefer *NIX. You have the right to like and use whatever OS you want, or both. At least until Bill Gates takes over the world, then there will be nuclear winter.
-
quote:
Originally posted by farmer6re9:
A very comprehensive summation VoidMan, and one that should put to rest this thread.
You're fooling yourself if you think you can reason with them. They do not have the ability to read and comprehend. They see what they want to see. And they wet their beds.
-
hey fuck you, I can read pretty well thanks, and i did find your post convincing. The only damn reason I posted in the first place was that I was wondering why the hell people go around saying dump MS, and take Linux, its sooo many times better etc... As far as I can see ( which you may not think is very far) the only major difference between Linux and say MS XP is security wise, but for simple home users, that simply doesnt matter.
I have used Linux for about 1 1/2 years, so maybe I havent given it wenough of a chance. And why do loads of people go around saying shit like Bill Gates will lead us into a Nuclear Winter and shit. Sure, Him and MS are complete bastards, but isnt that going way too far?I do Like LInux, its what I hope for in Windows in terms of Stability and Configurability, but when it comes to lazy, ease of use, windows comes on top, which may not be good, but suits most people.
On thee Quake III Arena post, that is as you say rare. And I am willing to bet that you didnt just put the cd in and start installing it. there was probably some extra work needed. And thats what seperates WIn from LInux, sure win is as stable as a one wheeled bike, but most of the time i would rather have ease over stability. when i dont, I use linux. So finally, why dont some Linux nuts just stop telling the whole world to switch to Linux, becasue it is the only way. It isnt, and you even admit that its not the best for everything.
-
quote:
Originally posted by condorstats:
hey fuck you, I can read pretty well thanks, and i did find your post convincing. The only damn reason I posted in the first place was that I was wondering why the hell people go around saying dump MS, and take Linux, its sooo many times better etc...
I'm sorry. (http://smile.gif) Sincerely. I shouldn't make the smart-ass remarks, I just do it to get people riled (and it works). I'll try not to do it in the future as it does detract from the *real* comments.
quote:
As far as I can see ( which you may not think is very far) the only major difference between Linux and say MS XP is security wise, but for simple home users, that simply doesnt matter.
I would disagree with this. Security for home users *does* matter although most home users don't realize it. Those home users become unwilling/unknowing participants in DDoS attacks. And they shouldn't have to put up with the virus problem (and I shouldn't have to put up with recieving messages from those users containing such viru because their OS sent it to me). They may spend a little more time getting an app installed but that isn't as much time as I've spent telling them how to obtain and install virus software and clean up their system.
-
And reason #119:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/tech/2001-12-20-xp.htm (http://www.usatoday.com/money/tech/2001-12-20-xp.htm)
-
Does anyone else think that this is really funny. This stuff happens at least once a week. Certainly if there was another OS that ruled the marketplace it would have its share of viruses also, but this is just silly. A default setting for plug and play appliances helps cause this problem? Does anyone know where I can find out if my microwave is supported under XP?
-
quote:
Originally posted by MeatHead:
Does anyone else think that this is really funny. This stuff happens at least once a week. Certainly if there was another OS that ruled the marketplace it would have its share of viruses also, but this is just silly. A default setting for plug and play appliances helps cause this problem? Does anyone know where I can find out if my microwave is supported under XP?
Microsoft OSs are the *only* OSs that have "viru" that I am aware of. Did pre-OSX Macs have viru? I've never seen one in UNIX (I've seen trojans but not viru).
To find out if your Microwave is supported take your XP CD, wrap it in tin foil, insert into the Microwave, turn on High for 10 minutes. If your Microwave still works then it is not supported under XP.
[ December 21, 2001: Message edited by: VoidMain ]
-
ok, i see your point on the security POV, maybe I have just used windows too much to really appreciate the benefits form linux. thanks for answering.
-
C:\>cd microwave
C:\microwave>dir
Directory of C:\microwave>
turkey.food 4:30pm Nov 24 eat in 25,690 bytes
anotherstupid.vulnerability 12:00am Oct. 18 69 bytes
bend.over Oct. 19 Windows bytes you in the ass again
mshomo.bat Oct. 18 69 bytes
C:\microwave> type mshomo.bat
path=C:\>bill gates in\steve ballmer's ass\
rem C:\DoJ>billgatesfinger.exe
-
quote:
Originally posted by condorstats:
But why should I change?? I have Win XP running fine, it has yet to crash, preview pane is turned off, built in Firewall, AV software installed. the pc just works, thats all I need. Can you name any reasons why the AVERAGE home user should use *NIX? NO better multitasking bull, most peps dont care, just some reasons why it is better.
I have to admit I would be happy if everybody suddenly decided to switch away from an M$ OS, but I know that's not going to happen. I just wish people would take the time to research Microsoft before buying one of their products.
-
i just wanted to resurrect this thread! it has some classic posts by people that i haveq not seen around here foqr a lo-o-o-ong time! it also features (if you go to page one) one of the, if not the, very first of the many celebrated altercations between void main and zombie64763248236478! void main characteristically tells him he is full of shit!
top entertainment! at the time this was all going on, i was still only reading the board, don think i had even signed up yet! i could be wrong though...
-
quote:
Originally posted by <Zombie9920>:
Windows and BeOS are true multi-tasking OSes also.
Sure, Win9x has memory leaks..but Win2K and XP don't. Windows NT actually has some *nix technology embedded into the Kernel. Windows NT is practically a user friendly variant of *nix with a decent GUI and mainstream hardware/software support. 90% of the people who bash Microsoft Windows has a low end computer that can't run Windows worth a damn, that is why they choose *nix. Hell, I have tried Mandrake and RedHat Linux and I think thier GUI is awful(hence why it is fast). If you pay attention to it you will notice that the GUI in those 2 OSes were inspired by Windows(they even have a little bar at the bottom of the screen that works like the Windows Taskbar/start menu). I'm not saying *nix isn't bad because it really isn't..but Windows isn't near as bad as the *nix geeks make it out to be. If Windows was so bad then why does it hold over 75% of the market? Windows had to be something to reach such a high stature in the market. People don't buy shit if it isn't worth a damn. Remember, Windows can do everything *nix can do and more. (http://smile.gif)
Well calum i never saw this thread so I need to leave my mark like a dog on Zombie's post :D
His post is so wrong, in so many levels it aint even funny.
My PC
3 40Gigs Digital Western 7200 rpm
Abit AT7: Supports the fallowing-->
-AMD Socket A XP 1500 + 220
-SUper I/o, USB 2.0 IEEE 1394.
- VIA KT333 and VT8233A that support 1600/2100/PC 2700 DDR SDRAM
- 266 Bus speed
- AGP 1x/2x/4x
- ULTRA DMA 133/Raid, support for DMA 33/66/100
- HPT 374 (HighPoint) It can connect up to 12 IDE devices along with support of RAID 0/1/0+1
-System Bios Soft Menu
-Built in Sound Card RealTech
-Built in RealTech 8100 NIC card
Gforce 3 64 DDR by Visiontech
XP 1600 1.5GHz
SOund Blaster 512 Sound Card
Not bad I would say so, yes ? ;)
Oh yes, my PC runs RedHat 7.3 and NOTHING else.
And i thought Windows copied anooother OS when it came to their GUI.
What about them apples.
[ October 12, 2002: Message edited by: bazoukas ]
-
quote:
If Windows was so bad then why does it hold over 75% of the market? Windows had to be something to reach such a high stature in the market. People don't buy shit if it isn't worth a damn.
Read the sig for the answer to this one.
Everybody has already given you enough answers to all your questions.
Remember this: Microsoft, if given the chance, would delete every other OS on the planet if possible. Not for the sake of the consumer, but for the sake of profit. Bill Gates is a greedy bastard period! He doesn't care about operating systems, or computers. He just cares about profit. This shows in the quality of M$ products. That's why there are so many bells and whistles in windows. Eyecandy for the masses. Every feature in windows is designed to attract a pc-illiterate consumer. Drag and drop, plug and play, net passport, autorun, setup.exe, etc. So microsoft knows how to make a profit. How does this translate into "better"? It doesn't. People take confort in numbers, so if what they buy is used by the majority, then they think it is "good". The average person feels discomfort if he chooses something that is not "normal". People don't want to be a minority. So there are more windows users. So what? There are more tvs than pcs. Does that make WEBtv better? Quit looking for justification. Use windows if you want. It's just a choice.
And as for Linux, Linux Rocks! Linux just wants to exist, and have fun! If some hardware, and some software companies weren't so "closed", then maybe *nix users wouldn't be so pissed. I'm pissed at Macromedia, because they couldn't care enough to make a *nix shockwave plugin. I'm pissed because I can't run a DVD (which I paid for) right out of the box! Just because somebody wants to make a buck!
Linux works, for free or cheap. And this OS can do whatever any other co$tly OS can do period.
Oh yeah, don't forget to read the SIG!
:D
-
Wow! That was a real blast from the past! I love void main's answers, especially when he tells zombie he's full of shit! Man that was refreshing :D
-
wow! i didn expect people to reply so strongly to zombie632718637128 posts so long after the fact! just wanted to let people see some of the gems that used to come up on this board all the time! makes me realise how many people never stuck around though, when i remember all those names....
-
quote:
posted by condorstats:
But why should I change?? I have Win XP running fine, it has yet to crash, preview pane is turned off, built in Firewall, AV software installed. the pc just works, thats all I need. Can you name any reasons why the AVERAGE home user should use *NIX? NO better multitasking bull, most peps dont care, just some reasons why it is better.
If you use your computer basically as a glorified gaming console, or you simply have no problems with Windows and don't care about other OS's, then I'd say there is no compelling reason to use *nix. Use *nix if you're curious and want to know more about how computers work. (Or if you're one of those GNU guys who thinks it is immoral to use non-free software) With Linux, for instance, you can build your own OS (linux from scratch, anyone?) and you have access to free compiler tools and source code. Certainly a great OS for anyone majoring in computer science.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Calum:
wow! i didn expect people to reply so strongly to zombie632718637128 posts so long after the fact! just wanted to let people see some of the gems that used to come up on this board all the time! makes me realise how many people never stuck around though, when i remember all those names....
We should hunt them down and kill them. Thats what I think.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Calum:
it also features (if you go to page one) one of the, if not the, very first of the many celebrated altercations between void main and zombie64763248236478! void main characteristically tells him he is full of shit!
Ah the good old days... when I still had a little breath...
-
quote:
Originally posted by Windows XP User #5225982375:
If you use your computer basically as a glorified gaming console, or you simply have no problems with Windows and don't care about other OS's, then I'd say there is no compelling reason to use *nix. Use *nix if you're curious and want to know more about how computers work. (Or if you're one of those GNU guys who thinks it is immoral to use non-free software) With Linux, for instance, you can build your own OS (linux from scratch, anyone?) and you have access to free compiler tools and source code. Certainly a great OS for anyone majoring in computer science.
? xp user, has somebody found out your password and is posing as you? or are you trying to gain people's confidence? i suspect that you are actually posting as somebody else (possibly unixsucks) and you think it would be funny to be positive about linux in one ID and negative in another. is this the case?
-
quote:
Posted by Calum:
? xp user, has somebody found out your password and is posing as you? or are you trying to gain people's confidence? i suspect that you are actually posting as somebody else (possibly unixsucks) and you think it would be funny to be positive about linux in one ID and negative in another. is this the case?
No, it's not the case, (and I'm not unixsucks that's for sure) it's just that I think anyone majoring in CS would like Linux since it is not only pretty mature but you can look at all the source code. However, most people would not like Linux on their PC's because they aren't developers and they could care less about how a kernel works. They just want to use their PC like an appliance. Windows XP works great in this case. (and OS X, if you want to spend a lot of money on over-priced macs) People wouldn't use XP if they didn't like it, and there isn't anything to not like about XP besides the fact that it is a little over-priced and you have to "activate" it (though not if you download the corporate edition and generate your own corporate key using the XP Blue List generator so you can do windows update without being denied access by MS (and at least Windows update isn't always "too busy" like the red hat network)
Plus the fonts that come with linux are usually way, way too crappy. I think it's all a plot by optometrists to ruin people's eyesight so they'll have to buy glasses or contacts. How hard are good fonts to create anyway?
-
i see, so it is the old confidence gaining trick, eh?
you say something nice about linux, then i, or somebody else goes 'wtf???' and you chime in saying, oh yes, linux is great BUT most people would prefer windows xp.'
i imagine that your idea is that any normal dunderhead reading this page will get that far and decide that linux is not for them, since you use reasonable language they will be most likely to believe what you say out of hand.
Well you are right, and i hope that anybody dumb enough to fall for this trick does end up using XP. as you say, most people are too dumb to need all the extra much better features of linux anyway, so more fool them. Of course they'll be screaming when their system starts losing data and crashing because its too busy phoning home, but they can ring M$ support about thet...
-
quote:
Originally posted by Calum:
i see, so it is the old confidence gaining trick, eh?
you say something nice about linux, then i, or somebody else goes 'wtf???' and you chime in saying, oh yes, linux is great BUT most people would prefer windows xp.'
i imagine that your idea is that any normal dunderhead reading this page will get that far and decide that linux is not for them, since you use reasonable language they will be most likely to believe what you say out of hand.
Well you are right, and i hope that anybody dumb enough to fall for this trick does end up using XP. as you say, most people are too dumb to need all the extra much better features of linux anyway, so more fool them. Of course they'll be screaming when their system starts losing data and crashing because its too busy phoning home, but they can ring M$ support about thet...
I won't let you get away with these blatant lies! First of all, Windows XP's "phoning home" has nothing to do with loss of data and you know it. Second, Windows XP doesn't crash very much in my experience, certainly not at all on newer hardware (it has trouble with some older models, for instance my old computer)
As for your dunderhead using XP remark, I'm sure you wouldn't say the same thing about a Mac user who enjoys Apple computers because they "just work," now would you?
-
i sure would, however i would mean it in the same sense. in this case, i just mean somebody who doesn give a shit about ethics, reality or principles, they just want what they can get for themselves. this is why a lot of people use windows. most people prefer to go with the rest of the herd. Those that use macs are often (though less often than windows users) also herd animals, but maybe they think they are bucking the trend, or maybe they just think macs work better (maybe this is true!)
in my experience of Xp (which is as little as i can manage, and is limited to the rare times i have to use my flatmate machine) i have had just as many mysterious crashes and dreezes, mysterious functions not working and icons and files moving around or disappearing that i had in windows millenium. The only difference is in the shitty user interface which i think is even worse andmore insulting than previous windows versions.
as for data loss/phoning home, so you reckon that windows XP data losing function is totally seperate from it phoning home function? wow, no wonder it can't seem to do much else in any hurry. Actually the data loss is from a number of things. sometimes it might be from the randomcrashing, sometimes it might be from Microsoft strange idea of 'encryption' (which seems to mean something totally different from everybody else idea of what encryption means) or any number of other unpredictable things. the most stable windows XP system seems to be one with nothing installed on it, and preferably nobody using it.
-
Ethics. That's a laugh. Just in what way is using Windows XP unethical, anyway? As for your problems with using XP on your roommate's computer, I have to say that I never have those problems. I have had Linux crash on every single one of my computers from time to time, however. (nvidia kernel memory page fault bug, perhaps? all my PCs use nvidia cards) I'm not saying Linux crashes a lot, because it doesn't, but it has locked up from time to time. Certainly just as much as XP, if not more.
-
Every OS crashes.
Windows crashes more than others, although I must admit that XP does seem more stable than its NT/2000 predecessors (awaits flames)
But for me, it all boils down to what I saw in someone's sig...
If it ain't UNIX... fuck it!
UNIX is the king of OSes... Ken Thompson is like God for creating it, and Linus Torvalds is like Christ for coming to free us from slavery and sin.
Allright... that was uber-cheesy and Christian-centric, but ::shrugs:: I'm not perfect!
BTW... Bill Gates is Satan and Windows is Hell (except 95... it was purgatory)
-
quote:
Originally posted by Windows XP User #5225982375:
Ethics. That's a laugh. Just in what way is using Windows XP unethical, anyway? As for your problems with using XP on your roommate's computer, I have to say that I never have those problems. I have had Linux crash on every single one of my computers from time to time, however. (nvidia kernel memory page fault bug, perhaps? all my PCs use nvidia cards) I'm not saying Linux crashes a lot, because it doesn't, but it has locked up from time to time. Certainly just as much as XP, if not more.
this does indeed look very silly now 'linux user' has 'come out'! :D