[News] Linux Makes You Not Stupid - Linux

This is a discussion on [News] Linux Makes You Not Stupid - Linux ; On 2007-12-23, William Poaster claimed: > On Sunday 23 Dec 2007 3:37 am, Tattoo Vampire wrote in comp.os.linux.advocacy: > >> DFS wrote: >> >>> No, I did mean it creates the root account with password 'root' when you >>> install ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5
Results 81 to 87 of 87

Thread: [News] Linux Makes You Not Stupid

  1. Re: Linux Makes You Not Stupid

    On 2007-12-23, William Poaster claimed:
    > On Sunday 23 Dec 2007 3:37 am, Tattoo Vampire wrote in comp.os.linux.advocacy:
    >
    >> DFS wrote:
    >>
    >>> No, I did mean it creates the root account with password 'root' when you
    >>> install from the LiveCD.


    >> You're an idiot, st00piD00FuS.

    >
    > I wonder which mythical distribution he says he installed, that created a root
    > account with the password 'root'.


    I think he means he "installed" it in his CD drive. That's about all of
    the "installing" most Windummies ever do. After that, it either has a
    wizard or it's toast.

    --
    Be different: conform.

  2. Re: Linux Makes You Not Stupid

    Tattoo Vampire wrote:

    >DFS wrote:
    >
    >> No, I did mean it creates the root account with password 'root' when you
    >> install from the LiveCD. But I could be wrong; I went back to my earlier
    >> posts and I can't find where I actually did the install.

    >
    >You're an idiot, st00piD00FuS.


    Holy ****. He repeated it, after being corrected, even. What an
    ignorant fscking asshole. How could the twit even "show his face"
    around here after embarrassing himself so?


  3. Re: Linux Makes You Not Stupid

    On 2007-12-26, chrisv claimed:
    > Tattoo Vampire wrote:
    >
    >>DFS wrote:
    >>
    >>> No, I did mean it creates the root account with password 'root' when you
    >>> install from the LiveCD. But I could be wrong; I went back to my earlier
    >>> posts and I can't find where I actually did the install.

    >>
    >>You're an idiot, st00piD00FuS.

    >
    > Holy ****. He repeated it, after being corrected, even. What an
    > ignorant fscking asshole. How could the twit even "show his face"
    > around here after embarrassing himself so?


    Remember, we have The Funkybreath Book of Daphy Definishuns in this
    group. So words mean something other than what they mean.

    DuFuS can repeat things that are wrong over and over and over because
    he's "mistaken", and he has "corrected" himself and "admitted" he was
    wrong "several times" after being corrected. Just like Funky.

    Doofy's like the old RCA dog, looking into the gramophone, puzzled
    because he hears His Master's Voice® coming out of it. His master is
    saying "It's just a mistake, DuFuS. Never treat it as anything else,
    no matter how many times you get caught at it."

    --
    We now return you to... The Thread That Would Not Die.

  4. Re: Linux Makes You Not Stupid

    Sinister Midget wrote:

    >Remember, we have The Funkybreath Book of Daphy Definishuns in this
    >group. So words mean something other than what they mean.


    Well, that's true. Suddenly, we are asked to believe things like
    "design and support decisions are *PART* of developing the
    manufacturing process."

    Certainly, manufacturing and design come-together on major redesigns
    that CAN have an effect on manufacturing processes. In addition,
    designs may be regularly adjusted to facilitate manufacturing.

    However, none of this make Erik's claim, quoted above, true. His
    qualifier-free statement covers everything from major design efforts
    to trivial component swaps.

    We are not talking about a major change like going from ATX to BTX.
    We are not talking about implementing a design/manufacturing-process
    change to reduce costs. We are talking about bolting-in a certain HD
    and motherboard (for Linux machines), which is business as usual for
    Dell.

    Erik's weaseling and FUD knows no bounds.


  5. Re: Linux Makes You Not Stupid

    On Wednesday 26 Dec 2007 1:54 pm, chrisv wrote in comp.os.linux.advocacy:

    > Tattoo Vampire wrote:
    >
    >>DFS wrote:
    >>
    >>> No, I did mean it creates the root account with password 'root' when you
    >>> install from the LiveCD. But I could be wrong; I went back to my earlier
    >>> posts and I can't find where I actually did the install.

    >>
    >>You're an idiot, st00piD00FuS.

    >
    > Holy ****. He repeated it, after being corrected, even. What an
    > ignorant fscking asshole. How could the twit even "show his face"
    > around here after embarrassing himself so?


    Take your pick:
    1] He doesn't care about looking stupid.
    2] He's a M$ shill & as he's being paid, he says anything they want.
    3] He really *is* that stupid.

    --
    Operating systems: FreeBSD 6.2 (64bit), PC-BSD 1.4,
    Testing: FreeBSD 7.0-BETA 3
    Linux systems: Kubuntu 7.10 "Gutsy" amd64,
    Debian 4.0, PCLinuxOS 2007.

  6. Re: Linux Makes You Not Stupid

    chrisv writes:

    > Sinister Midget wrote:
    >
    >>Remember, we have The Funkybreath Book of Daphy Definishuns in this
    >>group. So words mean something other than what they mean.

    >
    > Well, that's true. Suddenly, we are asked to believe things like
    > "design and support decisions are *PART* of developing the
    > manufacturing process."
    >


    My god you are a lying moron. You got handed a new one in that
    discussion - you clearly have NO iodea about the time required to get a
    product to market for a company like DELL. It's not garageware any more
    old chap. DELL customers dont want to RTFM to change their screen
    resolutions.

    You get more clueless as the new year approaches.


  7. Re: Linux Makes You Not Stupid

    nessuno@wigner.berkeley.edu espoused:
    > On Dec 20, 5:09 am, Linonut wrote:
    >> * ness...@wigner.berkeley.edu fired off this tart reply:
    >>
    >> >> That being said, it does not therefore imply that Linux is as insecure
    >> >> as Windows. By any stretch.

    >>
    >> > My personal opinion is that if Linux is ever used widely enough that
    >> > stupid users like those in the story start to use it, then they will
    >> > get their systems hijacked, too. I hasten to add that I am not
    >> > repeating the usual troll garbage that Windows has viruses only
    >> > because of its market share. I just mean that if a user is stupid
    >> > enough, and some are, then you can do anything.

    >>
    >> Some are. That is the key. And it's the ones who are stupid, but still
    >> smart enough, that are the danger.
    >>
    >> Most people will leave the settings as they are.
    >>
    >> > (How many steps can a
    >> > stupid user be tricked into following? 1,2, 20? sudo -s, enter root
    >> > password, install keylogger? We could make a graph with number of
    >> > steps on one axis, stupidity on another... OTOH if the user is that
    >> > stupid, he/she may not know what a root password is...)

    >>
    >> On the other hand, a user smart enough to do that would also likely be
    >> smart enough to know the results.
    >>
    >> That's the big difference between Linux and Windows. Windows started
    >> from the "dumbed down" perspective. Linux did not.

    >
    > Well "dumbed down perspective" is true but it doesn't convey the whole
    > mindset that put marketing and strangling competition ahead of
    > everything else. Hence the security swiss cheese that is Windows.


    .... well, there are loads of swiss cheeses, but emmenthal is the one
    with the holes in it...

    I agree with you about the nature of users, though, and that they can
    all be conned into doing something dumb if enough effort is put into it.
    There are some routes around this, but none are really very nice, or
    necessarily all that practical.

    Distributions could be restricted to only allowing the installation of
    packages from approved repositories, digitally signed. This is more or
    less possible now, but the restriction of freedom flies in the face of
    the GNU philosophy (and mine, for that matter).

    Perhaps better would be a new generation of ultra-low-cost systems which
    run from ROM of some kind, with some local storage for user settings and
    data. To an extent, this is going back to commodore pet thinking, but
    there were certainly some advantages to that approach.

    Perhaps a combination of the two - ROM-based systems plus digital signing
    and approved respositories for re-flashing and you'd have a reasonably
    secure system.

    Of course, the more you head to a monoculture, then the greater the risk
    of a single, serious, exploit exposing millions of machines - this being
    part of the Microsoft problem, and something which the free software
    world has avoided by having multiple distributions and versions of
    things.

    --
    | Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
    | Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
    | Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
    | My (new) blog: http://www.thereisnomagic.org |

+ Reply to Thread
Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5