So where's all the Linux viruses? - Linux

This is a discussion on So where's all the Linux viruses? - Linux ; Chris Ahlstrom wrote: What a *clown*, as you can see, I am not posting anything malicious. This Amityville.Linux ass-hole just had to run his big damn pie hole at me. :-P...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 150

Thread: So where's all the Linux viruses?

  1. Re: So where's all the Linux viruses?

    Chris Ahlstrom wrote:



    What a *clown*, as you can see, I am not posting anything malicious.
    This Amityville.Linux ass-hole just had to run his big damn pie hole at
    me. :-P

  2. Re: So where's all the Linux viruses?

    So anyway, it was like, 14:03 CEST Oct 14 2008, you know? Oh, and, yeah,
    Chris Ahlstrom was all like, "Dude,
    > After takin' a swig o' grog, Erik Funkenbusch belched out
    > this bit o' wisdom:
    >> On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 00:55:53 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:


    >> Umm.. chris.
    >>
    >> You might want to reread that.

    >
    > Nah, Erik. You just got snookered by that asshole formerly known as
    > "The Bee", who has taken to forging my name in a fairly obvious way.


    Fortunately, someone posting under another person's name is nowhere
    near the horror of having someone, say, register a gmail account, or
    Erik would have been up in arms over the great injustice instead of
    blindly falling for it.

    --
    Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana. Perth ---> *
    14:25:24 up 42 days, 16:28, 2 users, load average: 0.10, 0.10, 0.09
    Linux 2.6.26.2 x86_64 GNU/Linux Registered Linux user #261729

  3. Re: So where's all the Linux viruses?

    Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

    > On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 13:16:15 +0000 (UTC), Firey Bird wrote:

    ....

    >> Because it is no mean feat to create effective Tux-busters. Linux's
    >> multi-user heritage, its permissions system and its file structure make
    >> it a very difficult target. If Linux was as vulnerable as Windows, the
    >> rabid haters would have blown it away long ago. They haven't because
    >> they can't. Linux is bullet-proof!!

    >
    > It's not. I could easily create such a virus if I were so inclined, but I
    > won't for a variety of reasons (actually, all the ones I listed above).
    >
    > Only a moron thinks Linux or any OS can be bullet-proof.


    Sure, Linux isn't bulletproof. But it's a vastly more secure choice than
    Windows all the same.

    Richard Rasker
    --
    http://www.linetec.nl

  4. Re: So where's all the Linux viruses?

    Richard Rasker wrote:

    > Sure, Linux isn't bulletproof.


    No? Then why have Linux idiots claimed it's secure (period) for so many
    years?


    > But it's a vastly more secure choice
    > than Windows all the same.


    Not according to http://www.zone-h.com (pointed out by E. Funkenbusch)



  5. Re: So where's all the Linux viruses?

    On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 10:12:31 -0400, DFS wrote:

    > Richard Rasker wrote:
    >
    >> Sure, Linux isn't bulletproof.

    >
    > No? Then why have Linux idiots claimed it's secure (period) for so many
    > years?
    >
    >
    >> But it's a vastly more secure choice
    >> than Windows all the same.

    >
    > Not according to http://www.zone-h.com (pointed out by E. Funkenbusch)


    Until Linux can claim a large enough portion of the desktop to matter, I
    don't feel the true security of Linux, in the hands of ignorant users, has
    been tested.

    Yes the mechanisms are in place and Linux being built on the Unix model,
    technically, should be secure.
    We all know how that works when little Johnny gets his hands on the system.

    The wild west of repositories is going to be another test for Linux.

    For example, when a new user installs Ubuntu and the multimedia stuff
    doesn't work correctly, the first thing the groups suggest are to install
    several repositories (mediaubuntu for one) which have all of these magic
    things you need to install.
    Do people check these things as well as the stock repositories?
    Who knows?
    It's a matter of trust and all it takes is one rogue to slip some nasties
    into the programs and it will become a nightmare.


    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
    Please Visit www.linsux.org

  6. Re: So where's all the Linux viruses?

    "Moshe Goldfarb." writes:

    > On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 10:12:31 -0400, DFS wrote:
    >
    >> Richard Rasker wrote:
    >>
    >>> Sure, Linux isn't bulletproof.

    >>
    >> No? Then why have Linux idiots claimed it's secure (period) for so many
    >> years?
    >>
    >>
    >>> But it's a vastly more secure choice
    >>> than Windows all the same.

    >>
    >> Not according to http://www.zone-h.com (pointed out by E. Funkenbusch)

    >
    > Until Linux can claim a large enough portion of the desktop to matter, I
    > don't feel the true security of Linux, in the hands of ignorant users, has
    > been tested.
    >
    > Yes the mechanisms are in place and Linux being built on the Unix model,
    > technically, should be secure.
    > We all know how that works when little Johnny gets his hands on the system.
    >
    > The wild west of repositories is going to be another test for Linux.
    >
    > For example, when a new user installs Ubuntu and the multimedia stuff
    > doesn't work correctly, the first thing the groups suggest are to install
    > several repositories (mediaubuntu for one) which have all of these magic
    > things you need to install.
    > Do people check these things as well as the stock repositories?
    > Who knows?


    I know. And so do you. No they (the majority) don't.

    And you know full well what will happen then when the scammers turn
    their eye to Linux if it ever gets a big enough Market Share to make
    their efforts worthwhile.

    > It's a matter of trust and all it takes is one rogue to slip some nasties
    > into the programs and it will become a nightmare.


    Correct. Now you're in trouble. Everyone in COLA is convinced that that
    cant happen in Linux. Good to see you being honest about a serious
    issue.

    --
    "Asshole - you just started this thread to give you a few more opportunities
    to show off what an unmitigated prick you are."
    -- Tattoo Vampire in comp.os.linux.advocacy

  7. Re: So where's all the Linux viruses?

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Chris Ahlstrom

    wrote
    on Tue, 14 Oct 2008 00:15:06 -0400
    :
    > The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
    >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Chris Ahlstrom
    >>
    >> wrote
    >> on Mon, 13 Oct 2008 23:24:54 -0400
    >> :
    >>> The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
    >>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Chris Ahlstrom
    >>>>
    >>>> wrote
    >>>> on Mon, 13 Oct 2008 21:57:53 -0400
    >>>> :
    >>>>> Richard Rasker wrote:
    >>>>>> OK, put up or shut up. Show us this "bigger picture", proving that Linux
    >>>>>> users are just as vulnerable to malware, viruses and other mayhem as
    >>>>>> Windows users. Just one credible story will do -- in other words: just
    >>>>>> *one* reliably provable Linux infection tear jerker is enough against
    >>>>>> 200,000+ separate pieces of Windows malware.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Yep, I thought so. All talk and no trousers.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>> If you step into a Vista NG, you see hardly any posts about malware
    >>>>> issues. But again, like I said, nothing is bullet proof, not even Linux.
    >>>> Vista is. ;-) Especially when paired with good AV and
    >>>> a NAT router, which is the traditional setup for DSL and
    >>>> cable nowadays.
    >>> No, it's because of what's in the links that Vista is better protected
    >>> from the ignorant masses than any previous versions of the NT based O/S.

    >>
    >> Links? What links? Vista is inherently more secure because
    >> of what's in the *OS*. The links below might explain such,
    >> but Vista doesn't care what's in the links any more than
    >> one's local Linux kernel will care what's in
    >> http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/ .

    >
    > You are wrong and you are unwilling to even read the information in the
    > links. You are ridiculous.


    If you insist, but all that they say really is that Vista
    is more secure because Linux doesn't have UAC.

    >
    > Do you even know that the out of the box user-admin account that Vista
    > gives one or any new user account that are created are NOT user/admin
    > accounts that have full admin rights in certain situations, even with
    > UAC disabled?
    >
    > And man don't give me anything about Linux when Vista is not Linux.
    >


    Correct, Vista/Win2003 is not Linux, never can be Linux.
    Vista/Win2003 is *inherently* more secure than Linux
    (until someone goes in there and fixes Linux, obviously;
    I'm not sure how much more work NSA would have to do
    at this point). This is easily proven; just look at
    zone-h.org, for example; the percent of compromised Apache
    boxes is now at 85% or so, as of this week. (The site is
    malfunctioning at this time, so I can't be more specific.
    IIS was running at 21%, which is a distant second.)

    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    Q: "Why is my computer doing that?"
    A: "Don't do that and you'll be fine."
    ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

  8. Re: So where's all the Linux viruses?

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Richard Rasker

    wrote
    on Tue, 14 Oct 2008 14:51:07 +0200
    <48f495bb$0$724$7ade8c0d@textreader.nntp.internl.ne t>:
    > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >
    >> On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 13:16:15 +0000 (UTC), Firey Bird wrote:

    > ...
    >
    >>> Because it is no mean feat to create effective Tux-busters. Linux's
    >>> multi-user heritage, its permissions system and its file structure make
    >>> it a very difficult target. If Linux was as vulnerable as Windows, the
    >>> rabid haters would have blown it away long ago. They haven't because
    >>> they can't. Linux is bullet-proof!!

    >>
    >> It's not. I could easily create such a virus if I were so inclined, but I
    >> won't for a variety of reasons (actually, all the ones I listed above).
    >>
    >> Only a moron thinks Linux or any OS can be bullet-proof.

    >
    > Sure, Linux isn't bulletproof. But it's a vastly more secure choice than
    > Windows all the same.
    >
    > Richard Rasker


    See my post yesterday on why this is not so; it includes statistics.

    It turns out Apache is a weak point.

    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    Q: "Why is my computer doing that?"
    A: "Don't do that and you'll be fine."
    ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

  9. Re: So where's all the Linux viruses?

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Moshe Goldfarb.

    wrote
    on Tue, 14 Oct 2008 13:24:08 -0400
    <1dwhu47r6qlgw$.1n99vq01awv7f.dlg@40tude.net>:
    > On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 10:12:31 -0400, DFS wrote:
    >
    >> Richard Rasker wrote:
    >>
    >>> Sure, Linux isn't bulletproof.

    >>
    >> No? Then why have Linux idiots claimed it's secure (period) for so many
    >> years?
    >>
    >>
    >>> But it's a vastly more secure choice
    >>> than Windows all the same.

    >>
    >> Not according to http://www.zone-h.com (pointed out by E. Funkenbusch)

    >
    > Until Linux can claim a large enough portion of the desktop to matter, I
    > don't feel the true security of Linux, in the hands of ignorant users, has
    > been tested.


    It has been tested, *and found wanting*. Or haven't you looked?

    A server gets far more attacks than a mere desktop.
    Linux security is suffering badly (although in all fairness
    Apache is the weak link here).

    >
    > Yes the mechanisms are in place and Linux being built on the Unix model,
    > technically, should be secure.


    No, the mechanisms are *not* in place; the above link proves it.
    Otherwise, why are Apache servers being compromised more than 4 times
    more than IIS ones?

    Which one's more secure now? It ain't Apache. (The two are roughly
    equal in market share as well, so that dog won't hunt, either.)

    > We all know how that works when little Johnny gets his hands on the system.
    >
    > The wild west of repositories is going to be another test for Linux.


    Servers already have been a test. It failed. It might
    be fixable (I for one hope so), but it failed all the same.

    >
    > For example, when a new user installs Ubuntu and the multimedia stuff
    > doesn't work correctly, the first thing the groups suggest are to install
    > several repositories (mediaubuntu for one) which have all of these magic
    > things you need to install.
    > Do people check these things as well as the stock repositories?
    > Who knows?
    > It's a matter of trust and all it takes is one rogue to slip some nasties
    > into the programs and it will become a nightmare.
    >


    Correct, though with checksums one has a fighting chance.
    But really, Linux isn't more secure than Windows now, and we
    all need to be more careful.

    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    Q: "Why is my computer doing that?"
    A: "Don't do that and you'll be fine."
    ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

  10. Re: So where's all the Linux viruses?

    After takin' a swig o' grog, The Ghost In The Machine belched out
    this bit o' wisdom:

    > In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Chris Ahlstrom
    >


    Please ignore the forger, Ghost, or include a disclaimer that you know
    he is adopting my name without permission.

    Thanks.

    --
    Success is in the minds of Fools.
    -- William Wrenshaw, 1578

  11. Re: So where's all the Linux viruses?

    The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
    > In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Chris Ahlstrom
    >
    > wrote
    > on Tue, 14 Oct 2008 00:15:06 -0400
    > :
    >> The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
    >>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Chris Ahlstrom
    >>>
    >>> wrote
    >>> on Mon, 13 Oct 2008 23:24:54 -0400
    >>> :
    >>>> The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
    >>>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Chris Ahlstrom
    >>>>>
    >>>>> wrote
    >>>>> on Mon, 13 Oct 2008 21:57:53 -0400
    >>>>> :
    >>>>>> Richard Rasker wrote:
    >>>>>>> OK, put up or shut up. Show us this "bigger picture", proving that Linux
    >>>>>>> users are just as vulnerable to malware, viruses and other mayhem as
    >>>>>>> Windows users. Just one credible story will do -- in other words: just
    >>>>>>> *one* reliably provable Linux infection tear jerker is enough against
    >>>>>>> 200,000+ separate pieces of Windows malware.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Yep, I thought so. All talk and no trousers.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>> If you step into a Vista NG, you see hardly any posts about malware
    >>>>>> issues. But again, like I said, nothing is bullet proof, not even Linux.
    >>>>> Vista is. ;-) Especially when paired with good AV and
    >>>>> a NAT router, which is the traditional setup for DSL and
    >>>>> cable nowadays.
    >>>> No, it's because of what's in the links that Vista is better protected
    >>>> from the ignorant masses than any previous versions of the NT based O/S.
    >>> Links? What links? Vista is inherently more secure because
    >>> of what's in the *OS*. The links below might explain such,
    >>> but Vista doesn't care what's in the links any more than
    >>> one's local Linux kernel will care what's in
    >>> http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/ .

    >> You are wrong and you are unwilling to even read the information in the
    >> links. You are ridiculous.

    >
    > If you insist, but all that they say really is that Vista
    > is more secure because Linux doesn't have UAC.


    This is nonsense BS out of you man. All those links are saying is how
    Vista is protecting itself and the user better than any previous version
    of the NT based O/S workstations platform, which has nothing to do with
    Linux.

    What in the hell is the wrong with you? Are you on drugs here or what?

    >
    >> Do you even know that the out of the box user-admin account that Vista
    >> gives one or any new user account that are created are NOT user/admin
    >> accounts that have full admin rights in certain situations, even with
    >> UAC disabled?
    >>
    >> And man don't give me anything about Linux when Vista is not Linux.
    >>

    >
    > Correct, Vista/Win2003 is not Linux, never can be Linux.
    > Vista/Win2003 is *inherently* more secure than Linux
    > (until someone goes in there and fixes Linux, obviously;
    > I'm not sure how much more work NSA would have to do
    > at this point). This is easily proven; just look at
    > zone-h.org, for example; the percent of compromised Apache
    > boxes is now at 85% or so, as of this week. (The site is
    > malfunctioning at this time, so I can't be more specific.
    > IIS was running at 21%, which is a distant second.)
    >


    I really don't see your thinking. What has the nonsense that you are
    talking about have anything with the links that I have given you?

    WTF? This is nothing but a bunch of damn BS out of you.

    Amityville.Linux.Advocacy is nothing but bull****.

    I don't think any of you people are sane.



  12. Re: So where's all the Linux viruses?

    Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

    >After takin' a swig o' grog, The Ghost In The Machine belched out
    > this bit o' wisdom:
    >
    >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Chris Ahlstrom
    >>

    >
    >Please ignore the forger, Ghost, or include a disclaimer that you know
    >he is adopting my name without permission.


    Yes. Something like "some idiot forging Linonut" would be
    appropriate...


  13. Re: So where's all the Linux viruses?

    Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
    > After takin' a swig o' grog, The Ghost In The Machine belched out
    > this bit o' wisdom:
    >
    >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Chris Ahlstrom
    >>

    >
    > Please ignore the forger, Ghost, or include a disclaimer that you know
    > he is adopting my name without permission.
    >
    > Thanks.
    >


    Christine, here you go you little *bitch*. Now, maybe, you'll stop
    whining like a little *bitch*, you little bitch.

  14. Re: So where's all the Linux viruses?

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Chris Ahlstrom

    wrote
    on Tue, 14 Oct 2008 14:51:52 -0400
    <4oadnTu4CK7Gd2nVnZ2dnUVZ_uqdnZ2d@earthlink.com>:
    > The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
    >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Chris Ahlstrom
    >>
    >> wrote
    >> on Tue, 14 Oct 2008 00:15:06 -0400
    >> :
    >>> The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
    >>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Chris Ahlstrom
    >>>>
    >>>> wrote
    >>>> on Mon, 13 Oct 2008 23:24:54 -0400
    >>>> :
    >>>>> The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
    >>>>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Chris Ahlstrom
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> wrote
    >>>>>> on Mon, 13 Oct 2008 21:57:53 -0400
    >>>>>> :
    >>>>>>> Richard Rasker wrote:
    >>>>>>>> OK, put up or shut up. Show us this "bigger picture", proving that Linux
    >>>>>>>> users are just as vulnerable to malware, viruses and other mayhem as
    >>>>>>>> Windows users. Just one credible story will do -- in other words: just
    >>>>>>>> *one* reliably provable Linux infection tear jerker is enough against
    >>>>>>>> 200,000+ separate pieces of Windows malware.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Yep, I thought so. All talk and no trousers.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> If you step into a Vista NG, you see hardly any posts about malware
    >>>>>>> issues. But again, like I said, nothing is bullet proof, not even Linux.
    >>>>>> Vista is. ;-) Especially when paired with good AV and
    >>>>>> a NAT router, which is the traditional setup for DSL and
    >>>>>> cable nowadays.
    >>>>> No, it's because of what's in the links that Vista is better protected
    >>>>> from the ignorant masses than any previous versions of the NT based O/S.
    >>>> Links? What links? Vista is inherently more secure because
    >>>> of what's in the *OS*. The links below might explain such,
    >>>> but Vista doesn't care what's in the links any more than
    >>>> one's local Linux kernel will care what's in
    >>>> http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/ .
    >>> You are wrong and you are unwilling to even read the information in the
    >>> links. You are ridiculous.

    >>
    >> If you insist, but all that they say really is that Vista
    >> is more secure because Linux doesn't have UAC.

    >
    > This is nonsense BS out of you man. All those links are saying is how
    > Vista is protecting itself and the user better than any previous version
    > of the NT based O/S workstations platform, which has nothing to do with
    > Linux.


    It matters not a whit, as Linux doesn't have UAC either
    (neither did XP). Therefore, Vista is better.

    >
    > What in the hell is the wrong with you? Are you on drugs here or what?


    Coffee.

    >
    >>
    >>> Do you even know that the out of the box user-admin account that Vista
    >>> gives one or any new user account that are created are NOT user/admin
    >>> accounts that have full admin rights in certain situations, even with
    >>> UAC disabled?
    >>>
    >>> And man don't give me anything about Linux when Vista is not Linux.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Correct, Vista/Win2003 is not Linux, never can be Linux.
    >> Vista/Win2003 is *inherently* more secure than Linux
    >> (until someone goes in there and fixes Linux, obviously;
    >> I'm not sure how much more work NSA would have to do
    >> at this point). This is easily proven; just look at
    >> zone-h.org, for example; the percent of compromised Apache
    >> boxes is now at 85% or so, as of this week. (The site is
    >> malfunctioning at this time, so I can't be more specific.
    >> IIS was running at 21%, which is a distant second.)
    >>

    >
    > I really don't see your thinking. What has the nonsense that you are
    > talking about have anything with the links that I have given you?


    You may want to be more specific; anything in the links I should
    look for, then? Clearly, the main message is that Vista has UAC;
    the first link in particular was how to configure it.

    >
    > WTF? This is nothing but a bunch of damn BS out of you.
    >
    > Amityville.Linux.Advocacy is nothing but bull****.
    >
    > I don't think any of you people are sane.
    >


    You want sanity, try alt.24hour.support. ;-)

    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    Q: "Why is my computer doing that?"
    A: "Don't do that and you'll be fine."
    ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

  15. Re: So where's all the Linux viruses?

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, chrisv

    wrote
    on Tue, 14 Oct 2008 14:09:01 -0500
    <5hr9f4hcafojm1o6330j4i4une4tjddoto@4ax.com>:
    > Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
    >
    >>After takin' a swig o' grog, The Ghost In The Machine belched out
    >> this bit o' wisdom:
    >>
    >>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Chris Ahlstrom
    >>>

    >>
    >>Please ignore the forger, Ghost, or include a disclaimer that you know
    >>he is adopting my name without permission.

    >
    > Yes. Something like "some idiot forging Linonut" would be
    > appropriate...
    >


    I for one would have thought the difference obvious, since
    SLRN includes the email addresses within <>.

    In any event, I tend to respond to the actual message. ;-)

    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    Linux. Because Windows' Blue Screen Of Death is just
    way too frightening to novice users.
    ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

  16. Re: So where's all the Linux viruses?

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Identity

    wrote
    on Tue, 14 Oct 2008 15:15:28 -0400
    <2pCdnV4BkIp8cmnVnZ2dnUVZ_szinZ2d@earthlink.com>:
    > Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
    >> After takin' a swig o' grog, The Ghost In The Machine belched out
    >> this bit o' wisdom:
    >>
    >>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Chris Ahlstrom
    >>>

    >>
    >> Please ignore the forger, Ghost, or include a disclaimer that you know
    >> he is adopting my name without permission.
    >>
    >> Thanks.
    >>

    >
    > Christine, here you go you little *bitch*. Now, maybe, you'll stop
    > whining like a little *bitch*, you little bitch.


    Good, perhaps we can move on now. We were discussing,
    after all, the lapse in Apache security in a neighboring
    branch of this subthread.

    (This lapse is a rather unexpected result, admittedly.)

    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    Linux. Because Windows' Blue Screen Of Death is just
    way too frightening to novice users.
    ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

  17. Re: So where's all the Linux viruses?

    Identity wrote:

    >Now,


    *plonk*


  18. Re: So where's all the Linux viruses?

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, chrisv

    wrote
    on Tue, 14 Oct 2008 14:56:17 -0500
    :
    > Identity wrote:
    >
    >>Now,

    >
    > *plonk*
    >


    He's now properly scored down in my file as well.

    For what all this is worth. ;-)

    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    Windows. Because it's not a question of if.
    It's a question of when.
    ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

  19. Re: So where's all the Linux viruses?

    On Oct 14, 1:45*pm, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
    >
    > Please ignore the forger, Ghost, or include a disclaimer that you know
    > he is adopting my name without permission.


    The Loon from Ohio is back to his adolescent tricks again with today's
    additions to his nick-list:

    Identity
    Chris Ahlstrom

    You've all become accustomed to nicks he also used this past month in
    the Vista groups too:

    Montgumdrop
    MontGumDropped1 Paul
    Paul MontDenturesDropped
    Paul Montgumdrop

    Other nicks he's used in the recent past (in COLA) and has all but
    retired:

    Anti on Chicken Little(s)
    Anti on Linux Sinister Chicken Littles
    Brown Nosing Linonut
    chrisv1
    COLA Fish and Game
    COLO Loons
    COLA People Controller
    COLA Sucks
    Confused Donkey
    Linonut
    Linux Sucks
    Little Mad Dog
    Paul Montgomery
    Roy S. Schestowitz
    Savwafare with Flare
    Sudden Impact
    The Bee
    The Big Ticket
    The Hornet
    The Lone Ranger
    The Lone Ranger1
    The Lone Ranger2
    Triple X Killer

  20. Re: So where's all the Linux viruses?

    The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
    > In comp.os.linux.advocacy, chrisv
    >
    > wrote
    > on Tue, 14 Oct 2008 14:56:17 -0500
    > :
    >> Identity wrote:
    >>
    >>> Now,

    >> *plonk*
    >>

    >
    > He's now properly scored down in my file as well.
    >
    > For what all this is worth. ;-)
    >


    I might have to mess with chriv's nym again, since he likes to *plonk*
    and run.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7 ... LastLast