DDOS attack Microsoft - Microsoft Windows

This is a discussion on DDOS attack Microsoft - Microsoft Windows ; On Tue, 9 Sep 2003 00:12:56 +0000 (UTC), Bill Unruh wrote: > > > "User" writes: > > ]I know most doctors around here use windows because they cannot work out > ]unix. Next time you have a heart attack ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 10 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 195

Thread: DDOS attack Microsoft

  1. Re: M$ attack on Common Sense

    On Tue, 9 Sep 2003 00:12:56 +0000 (UTC), Bill Unruh wrote:
    >
    >
    > "User" writes:
    >
    > ]I know most doctors around here use windows because they cannot work out
    > ]unix. Next time you have a heart attack try fixing it yourself instead of
    > ]going to one of these people who "utterly incapable of exercising basic
    > ]common sense". Moron. Blamining users just because they haven't done a
    > ]computer science degree or spent 30 hours a week hacking unix is arrogant
    > ]and elitist. Other people have a real life you know.
    >
    > Connor is off the deep end. discount what he says.
    >



    Using this un-educated youth to get back at me for daring to disagree
    with you on the Usenet...


    Is REALLY low.


    I hope you can spell "cowardly-backstabbing-punk".


    Because that is what you are.


    Alan C

    --

    take control of your mailbox ----- elrav1 ----- http://tinyurl.com/l55a



  2. Re: M$ attack on Common Sense

    On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 00:23:06 GMT, Leythos wrote:
    >
    >
    > In article ,
    > User@hotmail.com says...
    > [snip]
    >> The only medical practice I know around here that uses unix (SCO Unix) the
    >> unix box always has problems and has been of the air for several days last
    >> week. The windows machines have all worked fine!!
    >>
    >> The company that owns the contract to maintain the SCO box can't seem to get
    >> it to handle more than 14 users, have difficulty setting up VPNs on it and
    >> all the other good stuff that appear to be just plug and play with
    >> microsoft.

    >
    > The sad part is it's not just doctors and other small business users. I
    > know a national chain of PET stored that used a few Linux machines and
    > after having reliability problems with them, they have decided to move
    > the Windows 2000.



    I think you are lying.

    >


    Let's see some evidence, please.



    >
    > --
    > --
    > spamfree999@rrohio.com
    > (Remove 999 to reply to me)



    By-the-way, calling someone who disagrees with you a "troll" is lame
    indeed.


    Lying and name-calling do nothing for your cause.

    But then, what other recourse do you have?

    Easier than presenting facts and data and responding to those awkward
    questions, isn't it?



    Alan C



    --

    take control of your mailbox ----- elrav1 ----- http://tinyurl.com/l55a



  3. Re: DDOS attack Microsoft

    After a long battle with technology,Alan Connor , an earthling, wrote:
    > Yes. A foolish move. The backslash is very important to the shell for
    > escaping. They didn't understand UNIX so they re-invented it poorly :-)
    >
    > But the mistake was not made by Bill Gates and friends, who didn't invent
    > DOS.....


    Right. Probably the blame is due to either:
    a) The guys at Digital that implemented RTX-11, or
    b) The guys at Digital Research (not related!) that implemented CP/M.

    Mind you, I think they all were doing what they intended to do, which
    _didn't_ involve reimplementing Unix. More likely the mistake was in
    Microsoft's blindly following things they didn't understand.
    --
    let name="cbbrowne" and tld="cbbrowne.com" in name ^ "@" ^ tld;;
    http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/internet.html
    When aiming for the common denominator, be prepared for the occasional
    division by zero.

  4. Re: M$ attack on Common Sense

    In article ,
    alanconnor@earthlink.net says...
    [snip]
    > Alan C


    PLONK

    --
    --
    spamfree999@rrohio.com
    (Remove 999 to reply to me)

  5. Re: M$ attack on Common Sense

    On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 01:26:08 GMT, Leythos wrote:
    >
    >
    > In article ,
    > alanconnor@earthlink.net says...
    > [snip]
    >> Alan C

    >
    > PLONK
    >
    > --
    > --
    > spamfree999@rrohio.com
    > (Remove 999 to reply to me)



    Run and hide

    (and good riddance)


    The M$ world is filled to the brim with dishonest and uneducated people
    like you.

    Gullible consumers of the sort that actually believe that "Things Go Better
    With Coke."


    For every business you can find that tried linux and gave up, I can find
    10 who can't believe that their system works all the time, is immune to
    viruses, and they don't have to spend half their lives on the telephone
    waiting for a technical support person to get around to them.


    You think linux is complicated?

    Windoze is so complex that people don't even BOTHER trying to learn how
    it works.

    They take one look at the MS Knowledge Base and fork out another 100 bucks
    for technical support.


    Alan C


    --

    take control of your mailbox ----- elrav1 ----- http://tinyurl.com/l55a



  6. Re: M$ attack on Common Sense


    "Alan Connor" wrote in message
    news:X%77b.3901$Yt.2303@newsread4.news.pas.earthli nk.net...
    > On Mon, 08 Sep 2003 22:07:28 GMT, User wrote:
    > >
    > >
    > >

    >
    >
    > I know most doctors around here use windows because they cannot work out
    > unix.
    >
    > Right. A person that has the ability to become an M.D. can't do what the
    > 13 year old kid down my block learned to do in two weeks.
    >
    > I am beginning to think that you are actually an idiot.


    Why are you judging ME for what OTHERS can and cannot do?

    Are you too stupid to tell the difference?





  7. Re: DDOS attack Microsoft

    On Mon, 08 Sep 2003 22:03:26 +1200, Max Burke wrote:

    > So here's what it does mean: Linux is a normal operating system; so is
    > XP. Both have bugs, some major, some minor. Anyone who tells you that
    > Linux is "inherently more secure" or "much less buggy" than XP simply
    > isn't working from current facts. The reality is that bugs happen, even
    > in Linux: Get over it.


    Linux *is* inherently more secure than the crappy "home" version of
    Windows . Move to the "professional" version and we can
    at least have a reasonable debate.

    And I swear to God that XP's user interface was designed by Fisher-Price
    (which is probably appropriate for a lot of users...)


  8. Re: DDOS attack Microsoft

    On Mon, 08 Sep 2003 11:49:06 +0000, Leythos wrote:

    > You can easily setup IP filters in Windows 2000 and XP - it's been there
    > for years. You can pick which ports you want to use.


    Where is this in 2K? Haven't seen it in 3+ years. Haven't used XP hardly
    at all, but have heard several iterations of "such-and-such problem with
    XP's new firewall".


  9. Re: M$ attack on Common Sense

    On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 00:23:06 +0000, Leythos wrote:

    > The sad part is it's not just doctors and other small business users. I
    > know a national chain of PET stored that used a few Linux machines and
    > after having reliability problems with them, they have decided to move
    > the Windows 2000. Their reasons were simple - they can find quality
    > resources to work on their networks and servers everywhere and they can
    > do all of their business working with one Software/OS provider. On the
    > flip side of this, if that had gone with HP-UX or SCO or AIX I would
    > imagine that their systems would have been stable, but I don't think
    > their IT budget would support AIX or HP-UX.


    Citation, please? I'm curious whether they put more than a token effort
    into it; a national chain *should* be able to do more than a mom-and-pop
    in this regard.

    Here's a company that went in the opposite direction:
    http://news.com.com/2008-1082_3-5065859.html?tag=lh


  10. Re: DDOS attack Microsoft

    > Ed Murphy scribbled:

    >> Max Burke wrote:


    >> So here's what it does mean: Linux is a normal operating system; so
    >> is XP. Both have bugs, some major, some minor. Anyone who tells you
    >> that Linux is "inherently more secure" or "much less buggy" than XP
    >> simply isn't working from current facts. The reality is that bugs
    >> happen, even in Linux: Get over it.


    > Linux *is* inherently more secure than the crappy "home" version of
    > Windows .


    So here's what it does mean: Linux is a normal operating system; so is
    XP. Both have bugs, some major, some minor. Anyone who tells you that
    Linux is "inherently more secure" or "much less buggy" than XP simply
    isn't working from current facts. The reality is that bugs happen, even
    in Linux: Get over it.
    http://www.informationweek.com/

    FYI....
    http://www.partyvibe.com/flavour/linux/security.htm
    http://www.linuxsecurity.com/advisories/index.html
    http://www.opennet.ru/base/linux/
    http://www.securityfocus.com/news/19
    http://lists.debian.org/debian-security-announce/

    --
    mlvburke@#%&*.net.nz
    Replace the obvious with paradise to email me.
    See Found Images at:
    http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/~mlvburke


  11. Re: M$ attack on Common Sense

    On Mon, 08 Sep 2003 22:07:28 +0000, User wrote:

    > The only medical practice I know around here that uses unix (SCO Unix) the
    > unix box always has problems and has been of the air for several days last
    > week. The windows machines have all worked fine!!


    Well, SCO is a whole other can of worms, seeing as the new owners are
    waving around lots of lawsuits / threats-of-lawsuits, claiming ownership
    of millions of lines of Linux source code, and otherwise (in the words of
    no less an authority than Linus Torvalds himself) "smoking crack".


  12. Re: DDOS attack Microsoft

    On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 14:52:53 +1200, Max Burke wrote:

    > So here's what it does mean: Linux is a normal operating system; so is
    > XP.


    Well, XP Pro, at least.

    > Both have bugs, some major, some minor. Anyone who tells you that
    > Linux is "inherently more secure" or "much less buggy" than XP simply
    > isn't working from current facts. The reality is that bugs happen, even
    > in Linux: Get over it.


    There are still differences, but they're relatively minor, and we've
    already gone over them. Microsoft's major problem is that they let
    the bottom-of-the-barrel users cause lots of collateral damage.

    You can stop copy-and-pasting your Standard Pro-Windows / Anti-Linux
    Diatribes now, btw. It's starting to look a little silly. At
    least you haven't really gotten shrill about things, unlike (I hate
    to say) certain parties on the other side of the debate.


  13. Re: M$ attack on Common Sense

    In article , emurphy42
    @socal.rr.com says...
    > On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 00:23:06 +0000, Leythos wrote:
    >
    > > The sad part is it's not just doctors and other small business users. I
    > > know a national chain of PET stored that used a few Linux machines and
    > > after having reliability problems with them, they have decided to move
    > > the Windows 2000. Their reasons were simple - they can find quality
    > > resources to work on their networks and servers everywhere and they can
    > > do all of their business working with one Software/OS provider. On the
    > > flip side of this, if that had gone with HP-UX or SCO or AIX I would
    > > imagine that their systems would have been stable, but I don't think
    > > their IT budget would support AIX or HP-UX.

    >
    > Citation, please? I'm curious whether they put more than a token effort
    > into it; a national chain *should* be able to do more than a mom-and-pop
    > in this regard.
    >
    > Here's a company that went in the opposite direction:
    > http://news.com.com/2008-1082_3-5065859.html?tag=lh


    There are MANY cases where companies have gone either direction and have
    been happy with their choice. I'm not naming the company since I don't
    have their permission to speak about it, but I'm sure that you can find
    as many examples out there as ones that went to Linux.

    I'm not here to prove anything to anyone - this went from being a
    discussion to being a rant of Alan's.

    Here is one that you know of: Maxtor
    http://news.com.com/2100-1001-253520.html?legacy=cnet

    Here is another one X/O communications:
    http://www.microsoft.com/serviceprov...ommunications_
    videoP74842.asp

    Here is one where a company chose Windows 2000 over Linux based on their
    "extensive" evaluation and this was in a Linux mag:
    http://linuxtoday.com/developer/2003021001226NWSWPB

    How about Sageway migrating 1800 servers from SCO to Windows 2003?

    As you can see, if you look at this, it's not about who's using what,
    it's about how you build your infrastructure. If you don't know what you
    are doing you will get compromised - no matter what OS you choose.

    This started by a person posting that Windows was not secure and many of
    us have posted that the default install of Redhat (which is Linux) is
    not secure either. Once things go to the masses, which Linux is not a
    masses product yet, it starts out by being non-secure. If it was
    completely secure my neighbor could not install and use it - What do you
    want to bet that 90% of the people in any given neighborhood can't
    install Linux on their computer, but with a single CD they could install
    Windows XP. It's not that Windows is not secure, it's that there are
    zillions of ignorant users running Windows systems - they are the
    security problem.

    If Linux was installed on as many home systems you would see the same
    types of issues.

    --
    --
    spamfree999@rrohio.com
    (Remove 999 to reply to me)

  14. Re: DDOS attack Microsoft

    On Tue, 9 Sep 2003 14:52:53 +1200, Max Burke wrote:
    >
    >
    >> Ed Murphy scribbled:

    >
    >>> Max Burke wrote:

    >
    >>> So here's what it does mean: Linux is a normal operating system; so
    >>> is XP. Both have bugs, some major, some minor. Anyone who tells you
    >>> that Linux is "inherently more secure" or "much less buggy" than XP
    >>> simply isn't working from current facts. The reality is that bugs
    >>> happen, even in Linux: Get over it.

    >
    >> Linux *is* inherently more secure than the crappy "home" version of
    >> Windows .

    >
    > So here's what it does mean: Linux is a normal operating system; so is
    > XP. Both have bugs, some major, some minor. Anyone who tells you that
    > Linux is "inherently more secure" or "much less buggy" than XP simply
    > isn't working from current facts.



    Linux is inherently more secure than XP.



    Linux is much less buggy than XP.



    This can be proven so easily that it is laughable.



    Here's a clue, Max Burke: Repeating nonsense over and over will not
    make it true.


    Alan C


    --

    take control of your mailbox ----- elrav1 ----- http://tinyurl.com/l55a



  15. Re: M$ attack on Common Sense

    On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 03:13:50 GMT, Leythos wrote:
    >
    >
    > In article , emurphy42
    > @socal.rr.com says...
    >> On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 00:23:06 +0000, Leythos wrote:
    >>
    >> > The sad part is it's not just doctors and other small business users. I
    >> > know a national chain of PET stored that used a few Linux machines and
    >> > after having reliability problems with them, they have decided to move
    >> > the Windows 2000. Their reasons were simple - they can find quality
    >> > resources to work on their networks and servers everywhere and they can
    >> > do all of their business working with one Software/OS provider. On the
    >> > flip side of this, if that had gone with HP-UX or SCO or AIX I would
    >> > imagine that their systems would have been stable, but I don't think
    >> > their IT budget would support AIX or HP-UX.

    >>
    >> Citation, please? I'm curious whether they put more than a token effort
    >> into it; a national chain *should* be able to do more than a mom-and-pop
    >> in this regard.
    >>
    >> Here's a company that went in the opposite direction:
    >> http://news.com.com/2008-1082_3-5065859.html?tag=lh

    >
    > There are MANY cases where companies have gone either direction and have
    > been happy with their choice. I'm not naming the company since I don't
    > have their permission to speak about it, but I'm sure that you can find
    > as many examples out there as ones that went to Linux.
    >
    > I'm not here to prove anything to anyone



    Such an obvious lie.


    - this went from being a
    > discussion to being a rant of Alan's.
    >



    More childish insults.



    linux is more stable and more efficient and more secure than Windoze.

    This could be proven in a court of law.


    You wouldn't even be able to FIND a lawyer that would take your side of the
    case on a contingency fee.

    It is also far less complex. So much so that Windoze users in general don't
    even bother TRYING to learn anything but point-and-click and how to call
    technical support.


    Windoze is a bad hack on DOS and with that registry, you went right over
    the edge.



    Alan C



    --

    take control of your mailbox ----- elrav1 ----- http://tinyurl.com/l55a



  16. Re: DDOS attack Microsoft

    "Alan Connor" wrote in message
    news:2zb7b.4111$PE6.549@newsread3.news.pas.earthli nk.net...
    > Linux is inherently more secure than XP.
    > Linux is much less buggy than XP.
    > This can be proven so easily that it is laughable.


    I'll post this for your own good but you'll neither read it or rebut it as
    it as it illuminates how folks like you are hurting, not helping your cause.
    No matter.

    MSB

    http://www.softpanorama.org/OSS/bad_...cacy_faq.shtml



  17. Re: DDOS attack Microsoft

    Try to find the icon named "My Network Places" on your Windows 2000 desktop.
    Right click it and choose "properties" as one would expexct for this kind of
    thing. Right click the connection icon for that connection that you'd like
    to implement IP filtering and select the TCP/IP protocal icon, then click
    properties and the Advanced... button. Click Options, then Properties.
    It's all right there, ever since W2k. But, the firewall is simpler to use
    and requires less knowledge to configure properly. It also provides better
    logging.

    Happy to help.

    MSB

    "Ed Murphy" wrote in message
    newsan.2003.09.09.02.47.54.238704@socal.rr.com...
    > On Mon, 08 Sep 2003 11:49:06 +0000, Leythos wrote:
    >
    > > You can easily setup IP filters in Windows 2000 and XP - it's been there
    > > for years. You can pick which ports you want to use.

    >
    > Where is this in 2K? Haven't seen it in 3+ years. Haven't used XP hardly
    > at all, but have heard several iterations of "such-and-such problem with
    > XP's new firewall".




  18. Re: M$ attack on Common Sense

    "Bill Unruh" wrote in message
    news:bjj5u8$gam$1@string.physics.ubc.ca...
    > Connor is off the deep end. discount what he says.


    Then tell him yourself. Quash his silliness among your own. Get you own
    proponents to kill that which marginalizes them.

    > ]The company that owns the contract to maintain the SCO box can't seem to

    get
    > ]it to handle more than 14 users, have difficulty setting up VPNs on it

    and
    > ]all the other good stuff that appear to be just plug and play with
    > ]microsoft.
    >
    > Sounds like a) you have an incompetent maintainer, or b) a useless
    > version of Unix (I would suspect both.)


    What, praytell IS "a useless version of Unix". As all are clones of one
    another how is anyone owning a business to choose due to all the use-less
    and use-full versions out there. In this case they need to hire maintainers
    AKA consultants. So based on these consultant's opinions it's really up to
    them what use-full or use-less version to install. It's not UNIX' fault.
    It's fragmentation and confusion and giving up your choice to someone else.
    Just like most folks do with Windows and Gates.

    > ]Large organizations like hospitals and uni's are able to support unix

    more
    > ]than small businesses because they use taxpayer money to give the machine

    a
    >
    > No. To maintain a Windows box and a Linux box probably takes just as
    > much work. Small businesses tend to ignore support, until they get
    > bitten by the latest bug or whatever.


    Agreed.



  19. Re: M$ attack on Common Sense

    "Alan Connor" wrote in message
    news:ML97b.3986$Yt.2644@newsread4.news.pas.earthli nk.net...
    > Using this un-educated youth to get back at me for daring to disagree
    > with you on the Usenet...
    > Is REALLY low.
    > I hope you can spell "cowardly-backstabbing-punk".
    > Because that is what you are.


    You appear the "youth" here completely by way of your attacks.



  20. Re: M$ attack on Common Sense


    "Alan Connor" wrote in message
    news:tga7b.4031$PE6.2051@newsread3.news.pas.earthl ink.net...
    > Run and hide
    > (and good riddance)
    > The M$ world is filled to the brim with dishonest and uneducated people
    > like you.
    > Gullible consumers of the sort that actually believe that "Things Go

    Better
    > With Coke."
    > For every business you can find that tried linux and gave up, I can find
    > 10 who can't believe that their system works all the time, is immune to
    > viruses, and they don't have to spend half their lives on the telephone
    > waiting for a technical support person to get around to them.
    > You think linux is complicated?
    > Windoze is so complex that people don't even BOTHER trying to learn how
    > it works.
    > They take one look at the MS Knowledge Base and fork out another 100 bucks
    > for technical support.


    http://www.softpanorama.org/OSS/bad_...cacy_faq.shtml



+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 10 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 ... LastLast