DDOS attack Microsoft - Microsoft Windows

This is a discussion on DDOS attack Microsoft - Microsoft Windows ; In article , sm@kcsmartNOSPAM.org says... > As Leythos so eloquently gibbered on Sat, 13 Sep 2003 at 23:33 GMT: > > > Linux is not a typical home user OS, it's about impossible for any > > typical, non-technical type, ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 8 of 10 FirstFirst ... 6 7 8 9 10 LastLast
Results 141 to 160 of 195

Thread: DDOS attack Microsoft

  1. Re: M$ attack on Common Sense

    In article <79d0kb.q6p.ln@host.newsservicer.org>, sm@kcsmartNOSPAM.org
    says...
    > As Leythos so eloquently gibbered on Sat, 13 Sep 2003 at 23:33 GMT:
    >
    > > Linux is not a typical home user OS, it's about impossible for any
    > > typical, non-technical type, to install on their computer - esp. if they
    > > have to download and compile the source (which you would want to review
    > > before you compiled it right?).

    >
    > Right there is another point where lack of understanding is rampant.
    >
    > I've used linux for several years, at home, as my main desktop, and I
    > only started dealing with the server stuff later. Not once, never, not
    > at all, have I *ever* had to compile everything to get a desktop
    > machine. Period.
    >
    > Not once have I *ever* needed to check the source to see if it was
    > safe. Instead I've been able to download the ISOs from trusted sources,
    > check against the MD5SUMs to be sure they're safe, burn them, plug them


    Just because it has a MD5 checksum does not mean that it's safe - you
    have no idea if you don't review the source - and you've been blowing
    about usenet posting about how great OS is since it's sooo open to
    review. How can you trust them if you don't check them out first?

    > in and install. Usually a few questions, a run to the corner grocery or
    > a shower, and I come back to a machine ready to reboot into a fully
    > operational and stable desktop.


    I seem to recall having to compile a great many things when D/L the
    linux distro's that we used a year ago. Even compiled the apps that came
    with it. As I recall, it was not something that even our Linux guru's
    were happy with. I can also recall that it was a pain to get it working
    in a Windows environment and that it took the better part of a day to
    get it all up and running in the mixed environment.

    > More than that, I've installed things with much less of a problem than
    > I've ever had with Winders. I've only had to download a separate driver
    > once. Except for that one time, at the end of the installation I had my
    > video settings working properly, printer working, sound working, NICs
    > working, all external drives working (SCSI, USB, IDE, etc), all except
    > a scanner: I always have to set that up separately. The one time I had
    > to download a driver was for a lexmark printer.


    I guess you've never installed Windows 2000 or Windows XP Professional
    or Windows 2000 Server, cause I do it all the time, and other than
    having to put the CD in with the drivers for special hardware there is
    very little to it - oh, and it comes up without a problem too.

    > Contrast that with every install I've done with a retail version of M$
    > products. Not once has any of those booted into a properly working
    > desktop that had even most things working correctly. Each and every one
    > required me to install separate drivers (along with reboots for most),
    > one at a time, and, in most instances, configure them for proper
    > operation, all after installation was "complete".


    Contrast that with my neighbor - a 37 Y/O housewife that doesn't
    understand how to plug in a USB printer - has no clue as to anything
    with a technical nature. I gave her a computer yesterday with nothing on
    it (virgin hard drive), gave her the XP Prof CD, and an Office XP Prof
    CD and in 1 hour I came back and it was all running, and she could use
    it to get to the internet, access files from the other computer (after I
    told her how to open network neighborhood), and all the things you found
    sooo hard to do.

    If I were to D/L the Lindows distro it might be as easy for her, but
    there is no MS Office for it. If I were to hand her the CD's for Linux,
    after we downloaded and burned them to CD, she "might" have been able to
    install it, but then her software would not work on it (kids games,
    Office XP, etc...)

    > You really should check your facts just a bit before finding yourself
    > lost in a sea of gibberish. Whether you pretend to know something you
    > don't, or you're deliberately misleading things, the above, as put
    > forth by you, is pure voodoo nonsense.


    It really seem as though you are the one posting nonsense - I'm posting
    from real world experience with thousands of workstation and hundreds of
    servers (all OS's) under my belt, not to mention supporting my family
    and friends on all their OS's. It sounds like you really should get some
    experience with products newer than 98 or ME.

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

  2. Re: M$ attack on Common Sense

    On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 01:50:20 +0000, Leythos wrote:

    > If I were to D/L the Lindows distro it might be as easy for her, but
    > there is no MS Office for it. If I were to hand her the CD's for Linux,
    > after we downloaded and burned them to CD, she "might" have been able to
    > install it, but then her software would not work on it (kids games,
    > Office XP, etc...)


    OpenOffice is fine for most home users. Kids' games, well, I'll grant
    you that one... there are a few out there, but probably not the ones
    that the kids yammer about after seeing a TV ad.

    > It really seem as though you are the one posting nonsense - I'm posting
    > from real world experience with thousands of workstation and hundreds of
    > servers (all OS's) under my belt, not to mention supporting my family
    > and friends on all their OS's. It sounds like you really should get some
    > experience with products newer than 98 or ME.


    Win2K Pro is a decent OS. It sounds like you should get some experience
    with the latest incarnations of Linux, though-- a lot changes in a year.


  3. Re: M$ attack on Common Sense

    "Alan Connor" wrote in message
    news:5DO8b.2538$BS5.706@newsread4.news.pas.earthli nk.net...
    > On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 23:33:09 GMT, Leythos wrote:
    > ---------------
    >
    > I know about 50 home computer users. 3 of them run Windoze and won't be
    > for long.
    >
    > I take great pleasure in helping people, for free, to install linux and
    > delete Windoze. A lot of us do.


    I allso assist _some_ people with installing linux. I don't do it often
    because I want to do real work and not be someones *free* system
    administrator. PS I hope you keep their systems fully up to date and
    rectify any problems they have!!!

    > My last 3 Debian installs took about 10 minutes each, and most of that
    > spent gabbing. Widely different machines, though all Intel.


    Great - installs everyhting you need to do what most people want in 10
    minues?

    Probably doesn't even bother with the X server or GUI. In fact I'll bet
    these so called 10 minute installs are single task installations like a
    router/gateway - where a real solution costs less than a second hand
    dedicated machine, cannot be hacked as easily, uses about 1/10th the power
    and 1/50th the space etc.

    Maybe even a floppy distro

    Pity he's not reading my responses and can't answer




  4. Re: M$ attack on Common Sense

    "Sinister Midget" wrote in message
    news:79d0kb.q6p.ln@host.newsservicer.org...
    > As Leythos so eloquently gibbered on Sat, 13 Sep 2003 at 23:33 GMT:


    > Not once have I *ever* needed to check the source to see if it was
    > safe. Instead I've been able to download the ISOs from trusted sources,
    > check against the MD5SUMs to be sure they're safe, burn them, plug them


    The checksum only checks the file has not been tampered with AFTER it was
    released for distibution (MS do this as well you know). It does not check
    to see if the is a deliberate trojan in the software or and accidental
    error. The ONLY way to do that is to review the source. If you have not
    reviewed the source and then compiled from the same source you reviewed then
    any claims about safety from OSS point of view are blasted out of the water.




  5. Re: M$ attack on Common Sense

    "Ed Murphy" wrote in message
    newsan.2003.09.14.00.50.27.922208@socal.rr.com...
    > On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 23:23:19 +0000, User wrote:
    >
    > > "Ed Murphy" wrote in message
    > > newsan.2003.09.13.03.47.09.228144@socal.rr.com...

    >
    > >> Exactly. If you measure server attacks alone, you're ignoring a big
    > >> piece of the picture. Home users and workstations matter!

    >
    > > I may have read this incorrectly. While attacks on home users are
    > > significant and do matter you cannot compare linux and windows in that
    > > situation because linux doesn't cater for home users.

    >
    > This is becoming increasingly untrue. Red Hat 9 is a major step in
    > that direction, and others are making further steps. (Perhaps too
    > far: Lindows was said to default to having everyone work as root. I
    > *hope* they've changed that.)
    >
    > Lindows also sells something called Click-and-Run: apparently you
    > just look through their list of software, push a button, and it gets
    > installed for you. This is generally free software that experienced
    > users could just download somewhere else; Lindows is basically charging
    > Joe User a convenience fee. Perfectly acceptable.


    RedHat 6 was also said to be user friendly - but a security nighmare. They
    left everything on. Redhat 6 also came with the wrong header versions so
    kernel compilation was difficult. Redhat seven versions came with complete
    source trees missing out of the kernel rpm. This is "user friendly". Its
    difficult just to chose a major version which will compile the kernel
    properly (which they are all supposed to do).

    This is a little misleading. Some of the UI stuff is the same but the
    connectivity that makes windows simply go (and is the same concern for
    security) doesn't work real well yet.

    BTW: Unless OpenOffice has changed in the last year it doesn't support user
    programming like VBA. I'm still trying to find a linux database thats as
    easy to work with as access for small data analysis. - preferably one that
    will open the access files I have been sent.






  6. Re: M$ attack on Common Sense

    In , "User" writes:
    >"Alan Connor" wrote in message
    >news:5DO8b.2538$BS5.706@newsread4.news.pas.earthli nk.net...
    >> On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 23:33:09 GMT, Leythos wrote:
    >> ---------------
    >>
    >> I know about 50 home computer users. 3 of them run Windoze and won't be
    >> for long.
    >>
    >> I take great pleasure in helping people, for free, to install linux and
    >> delete Windoze. A lot of us do.

    >
    >I allso assist _some_ people with installing linux. I don't do it often
    >because I want to do real work and not be someones *free* system
    >administrator. PS I hope you keep their systems fully up to date and
    >rectify any problems they have!!!
    >
    >> My last 3 Debian installs took about 10 minutes each, and most of that
    >> spent gabbing. Widely different machines, though all Intel.

    >
    >Great - installs everyhting you need to do what most people want in 10
    >minues?
    >
    >Probably doesn't even bother with the X server or GUI. In fact I'll bet
    >these so called 10 minute installs are single task installations like a
    >router/gateway - where a real solution costs less than a second hand
    >dedicated machine, cannot be hacked as easily, uses about 1/10th the power
    >and 1/50th the space etc.
    >
    >Maybe even a floppy distro
    >
    >Pity he's not reading my responses and can't answer
    >
    >
    >

    Hmmm my last Debian install,with GUI, took 20 minutes.
    You make too many assumptions.


    Proudly bought to you by the letters O & S & the number 2.


  7. Re: M$ attack on Common Sense

    As Alan Connor so eloquently gibbered on Sun, 14 Sep 2003 at 01:25 GMT:

    > On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 19:37:59 -0500, Sinister Midget wrote:
    >>

    >
    > Got 'em good. But they'll pretend the blood is just ketchup.


    I don't suffer any illusions. There are those who are open to fact.
    There are those who are not. I can usually discern the difference, and
    I base my expectations on experiences with those similar to the ones
    currently being addressed.

    --
    Use Microsoft Products: It's not like you needed that money or those
    rights anyway.

  8. Re: M$ attack on Common Sense

    As Leythos so eloquently gibbered on Sun, 14 Sep 2003 at 01:50 GMT:

    > In article <79d0kb.q6p.ln@host.newsservicer.org>, sm@kcsmartNOSPAM.org
    > says...
    >> As Leythos so eloquently gibbered on Sat, 13 Sep 2003 at 23:33 GMT:
    >>
    >> > Linux is not a typical home user OS, it's about impossible for any
    >> > typical, non-technical type, to install on their computer - esp. if they
    >> > have to download and compile the source (which you would want to review
    >> > before you compiled it right?).

    >>
    >> Right there is another point where lack of understanding is rampant.
    >>
    >> I've used linux for several years, at home, as my main desktop, and I
    >> only started dealing with the server stuff later. Not once, never, not
    >> at all, have I *ever* had to compile everything to get a desktop
    >> machine. Period.
    >>
    >> Not once have I *ever* needed to check the source to see if it was
    >> safe. Instead I've been able to download the ISOs from trusted sources,
    >> check against the MD5SUMs to be sure they're safe, burn them, plug them

    >
    > Just because it has a MD5 checksum does not mean that it's safe - you
    > have no idea if you don't review the source - and you've been blowing
    > about usenet posting about how great OS is since it's sooo open to
    > review. How can you trust them if you don't check them out first?


    That's a fact. And I'm talking about a *home* environment, one I can
    gamble with a bit.

    However, I don't believe there's any requirement that every user review
    every line of code to make sure it's safe. I know lots of users review
    every line of code, and I know I can trust the vast majority of them to
    be thorough in addition to being competent.

    The fact that I *can* review any code I wish, at any time I wish, goes
    a long way toward my trusting things. I download a lot of things and
    dont' always know them to be trusted sources. However, let me repeat:
    *home* environment. I would *never* do the same in a production
    environment.

    Also, I do _NOT_ download things as soon as they come available. So
    there's more time to allow others to go through things and for me to
    get some feedback on things before I ever get the end product.

    While MD5SUM doesn't guarantee that anything is safe, it does offer
    another means of checking the validity of the end product. That is the
    goal. In the end it's a matter of knowing who to trust and who to
    validate prior to trusting, then using the tools at your disposal to
    make sure things are what they say they are.

    >> in and install. Usually a few questions, a run to the corner grocery or
    >> a shower, and I come back to a machine ready to reboot into a fully
    >> operational and stable desktop.

    >
    > I seem to recall having to compile a great many things when D/L the
    > linux distro's that we used a year ago. Even compiled the apps that came
    > with it. As I recall, it was not something that even our Linux guru's
    > were happy with. I can also recall that it was a pain to get it working
    > in a Windows environment and that it took the better part of a day to
    > get it all up and running in the mixed environment.


    Unless you were using Gentoo, that wouldn't be the normal case. If you
    were using Gentoo, take a look in the mirror to see who the culprit is.

    If you decided you needed out of the ordinary software, this can also
    happen. But that is far from the norm.

    The subject I addressed was the falsehoods concerning THE AVERAGE HOME
    USER and what it takes for them to HAVE A DESKTOP. The AVERAGE HOME
    USER doesn't have to compile a ton of stuff just to have a desktop.
    They need a set of CDs and a bootable CD drive. Period.

    If they want Gentoo, they *should* have a clue about what they're
    getting into, knowing it will compile it almost totally from scratch.
    If they don't read just a tiny bit and end up trying Gentoo by mistake,
    shame on them.

    >> More than that, I've installed things with much less of a problem than
    >> I've ever had with Winders. I've only had to download a separate driver
    >> once. Except for that one time, at the end of the installation I had my
    >> video settings working properly, printer working, sound working, NICs
    >> working, all external drives working (SCSI, USB, IDE, etc), all except
    >> a scanner: I always have to set that up separately. The one time I had
    >> to download a driver was for a lexmark printer.

    >
    > I guess you've never installed Windows 2000 or Windows XP Professional
    > or Windows 2000 Server, cause I do it all the time, and other than
    > having to put the CD in with the drivers for special hardware there is
    > very little to it - oh, and it comes up without a problem too.


    I have installed 2K Pro and XP Pro. Both required addtional drivers.
    That step came *after* the install was ostensibly completed. Both
    required additional steps to get video to a usable state. 2K Pro
    required more work to get sound working properly. Both required me,
    after all of the installs and configuring, to get updates separately
    (Mandrake did it during the install).

    I *did * do an XP Pro install that didn't need anything extra (except
    updates, naturally). But that was OEM and it had everything setup when
    it did the deed.

    I've been spared 2003 Server, thank you very much. I'll let someone
    else do that from hereon in. I'm done with Winders problems (except for
    maintaining my son's 98 machine, which is destined to become obsolete
    when he's 5 or 6).

    >> Contrast that with every install I've done with a retail version of M$
    >> products. Not once has any of those booted into a properly working
    >> desktop that had even most things working correctly. Each and every one
    >> required me to install separate drivers (along with reboots for most),
    >> one at a time, and, in most instances, configure them for proper
    >> operation, all after installation was "complete".

    >
    > Contrast that with my neighbor - a 37 Y/O housewife that doesn't
    > understand how to plug in a USB printer - has no clue as to anything
    > with a technical nature. I gave her a computer yesterday with nothing on
    > it (virgin hard drive), gave her the XP Prof CD, and an Office XP Prof
    > CD and in 1 hour I came back and it was all running, and she could use
    > it to get to the internet, access files from the other computer (after I
    > told her how to open network neighborhood), and all the things you found
    > sooo hard to do.


    Did I use the word hard? Please point it out to me.

    What I was alluding to is the fact that I had to do less to have more
    with linux. Not that any of it was hard, but that some of it was very
    time-consuming. I can install an entire desktop with everything
    configured in about 1/2 hour with linux. With Winders that covers the
    CD. Then there's the drivers. Add another hour (if lucky) and we have
    the updates installed. (I also take a long time to see what the updates
    broke, but I wasn't even calculating that part.)

    In time spent, I'm running linux in a safer environment (i.e. better
    firewalling, updates current, etc) in the same amount of time it takes
    to just install the machine in Winders. To make them somewhat closer to
    the same in safety and security terms (not even possible, but let's
    pretend) takes about 3 times as long with Winders.

    And I still don't know, after 3 times as long, if one of the updates
    broke something with the M$ stuff. The likelihood is pretty high that
    something is bad after that, while the likelihood is everything is in
    good shape with linux. I say this because both have track records. The
    one built up by Micro-Soft hasn't been one that is easily trusted.

    > If I were to D/L the Lindows distro it might be as easy for her, but
    > there is no MS Office for it. If I were to hand her the CD's for Linux,
    > after we downloaded and burned them to CD, she "might" have been able to
    > install it, but then her software would not work on it (kids games,
    > Office XP, etc...)


    Why would anyone want to operate inferior software (M$ Office) on
    linux? Why not use one of the (better) native products: OpenOffice,
    Abiword, etc?

    The mind boggles!

    >> You really should check your facts just a bit before finding yourself
    >> lost in a sea of gibberish. Whether you pretend to know something you
    >> don't, or you're deliberately misleading things, the above, as put
    >> forth by you, is pure voodoo nonsense.

    >
    > It really seem as though you are the one posting nonsense - I'm posting
    > from real world experience with thousands of workstation and hundreds of
    > servers (all OS's) under my belt, not to mention supporting my family
    > and friends on all their OS's. It sounds like you really should get some
    > experience with products newer than 98 or ME.


    See above.

    Let me quote:

    >> > Linux is not a typical home user OS, it's about impossible for any
    >> > typical, non-technical type, to install on their computer - esp. if they
    >> > have to download and compile the source (which you would want to review
    >> > before you compiled it right?).


    Clearly, that's not in line with your claims about being knowledgeable.
    *YOU* need to check something more recent than kernel 0.1.4.

    --
    I wanted to make a list of all Microsoft innovations. Then I remembered
    that CTRL-ALT-DEL is handled by the BIOS.

  9. Re: M$ attack on Common Sense

    As User so eloquently gibbered on Sun, 14 Sep 2003 at 03:08 GMT:

    > "Sinister Midget" wrote in message
    > news:79d0kb.q6p.ln@host.newsservicer.org...
    >> As Leythos so eloquently gibbered on Sat, 13 Sep 2003 at 23:33 GMT:

    >
    >> Not once have I *ever* needed to check the source to see if it was
    >> safe. Instead I've been able to download the ISOs from trusted sources,
    >> check against the MD5SUMs to be sure they're safe, burn them, plug them

    >
    > The checksum only checks the file has not been tampered with AFTER it was
    > released for distibution (MS do this as well you know). It does not check
    > to see if the is a deliberate trojan in the software or and accidental
    > error. The ONLY way to do that is to review the source. If you have not
    > reviewed the source and then compiled from the same source you reviewed then
    > any claims about safety from OSS point of view are blasted out of the water.


    Not so. I put some faith in the process because I know many others
    reveiew the source. I also don't normally download things right when
    they're released. That gives others time to find and report problems.

    Still, even if everything you claim is true, the fact that I *can*
    review the code, and the fact that others *do* review the code gives me
    a safer place to begin than trusting the output from a company that
    hides everything from me *and* from everyone else. How can *anybody*
    know what they're getting if *nobody* has the chance to take a look at
    it?

    In fact, if they'd opened the code to review, the chances of some of
    the patches that caused major problems ever becoming widespread would
    have been much diminished. That it was hidden from view made the
    resulting damage far worse than it needed to be.

    This idea that *every* set of eyes need to look at the code to make it
    safer is a strawman. Compared to the alternative (no eyes can see it),
    having a large number looking at it is far preferable, whether
    everybody does or not.

    --
    SoBig - Innovative Microsoft peer-to-peer software at its finest!

  10. Re: M$ attack on Common Sense

    As User so eloquently gibbered on Sun, 14 Sep 2003 at 03:21 GMT:

    > "Ed Murphy" wrote in message
    > newsan.2003.09.14.00.50.27.922208@socal.rr.com...
    >> On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 23:23:19 +0000, User wrote:
    >>
    >> > "Ed Murphy" wrote in message
    >> > newsan.2003.09.13.03.47.09.228144@socal.rr.com...

    >>
    >> >> Exactly. If you measure server attacks alone, you're ignoring a big
    >> >> piece of the picture. Home users and workstations matter!

    >>
    >> > I may have read this incorrectly. While attacks on home users are
    >> > significant and do matter you cannot compare linux and windows in that
    >> > situation because linux doesn't cater for home users.

    >>
    >> This is becoming increasingly untrue. Red Hat 9 is a major step in
    >> that direction, and others are making further steps. (Perhaps too
    >> far: Lindows was said to default to having everyone work as root. I
    >> *hope* they've changed that.)
    >>
    >> Lindows also sells something called Click-and-Run: apparently you
    >> just look through their list of software, push a button, and it gets
    >> installed for you. This is generally free software that experienced
    >> users could just download somewhere else; Lindows is basically charging
    >> Joe User a convenience fee. Perfectly acceptable.

    >
    > RedHat 6 was also said to be user friendly - but a security nighmare. They
    > left everything on. Redhat 6 also came with the wrong header versions so
    > kernel compilation was difficult. Redhat seven versions came with complete
    > source trees missing out of the kernel rpm. This is "user friendly". Its
    > difficult just to chose a major version which will compile the kernel
    > properly (which they are all supposed to do).


    They're getting ready to release 10 or somesuch in about a month. Get
    over 6. It's over you.

    What source trees? I installed all of the 7.x series and found nothing
    missing.

    I also compiled kernels in all of those versions. I was using Redhat
    (the one that has the guy with the red hat). What were you using?

    --
    Linux: Because you can!

  11. Re: M$ attack on Common Sense

    > Ed Murphy scribbled:

    >> On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 10:21:15 +1200, Max Burke wrote:


    >> I know. That doesn't however stop viruses being created for
    >> Linux/OSS. Bottom line? Viruses can ONLY be created for computer
    >> OS'es when there are flaws in the OS itself that enable the virus to
    >> work. Linux/OSS is no more immune from that problem than Windows is,
    >> as the websites I have listed (OFTEN) clearly show.


    > Oh, for heaven's sake, the presence of a "delete file" command enables
    > a virus to work! Look, here's a Linux virus:
    > #!/bin/sh
    > rm -rf ~/*


    That would work in Linux without the user knowing it was working?

    > There is a school of thought which holds that a virus doesn't mean a
    > damn thing unless it has a reasonable chance of spreading.


    >> But listen to many/most Linux/OSS users/advocates you'd think
    >> Linux/OSS doesn't have flaws and vulnerabilities. It does, and
    >> ANYONE who claims otherwise is spouting BS. It's certainly NOT
    >> advocacy for Linux IMO.....


    > If you *think* that, then either (a) you're not listening carefully
    > enough, or (b) you're listening to people who aren't thinking
    > carefully enough. Or both. Unfortunately, (b) does happen, yes.


    Try reading COLA; Try talking to the likes of Alan, sinister midget,
    etc,etc; Try reading the *numerous* websites that advocate Linux....
    ;-)

    >>> 2) What's the delay time between introduction of a vulnerability
    >>> and discovery/repair?


    >> Irrelevant. See above as to why.


    > Oh, it's quite relevant. Actually, there are four points in time
    > that matter:
    > a) Introduction
    > b) Discovery by the black hats
    > c) Discovery by the white hats
    > d) Repair


    >>> 3) They're *not* the same kind of vulnerabilities.


    >> Yes they are: Buffer over runs/under runs. Flaws that can allow root
    >> access. Badly written code in the OS and apps doing what it's NOT
    >> supposed to do....


    > Some of the causes (allowing root access) are the same; others
    > (allowing viruses) aren't. The stuff that attacks these
    > vulnerabilities (rootkits vs viruses) follow suit: rootkits affect
    > Linux, viruses mostly don't.


    They're all vulnerabilities and/or flaws in the OS due to bad
    programming.....

    >>> First,
    >>> there are potentially more proofreaders.


    >> Ahh the many 'eyeballs on the code' argument.
    >> When is the last time YOU examined the code Ed? When is the last time
    >> YOU found a vulnerability or flaw in the code? When is the last time
    >> YOU fixed a flaw?


    > In OSS? Couldn't tell you the last time. However:


    In Linux itself then.....

    > I make a living consulting for a business software package. (Yeah,
    > it's proprietary. Unless you're offering me equal pay for OSS work,
    > you can just shut up right now.) I have access to the source code;
    > many other consultants for this package do not. Just being able to
    > *see* the code gives me a *huge* advantage. Being able to *change*
    > the code... that amplifies the effect, several times over.


    > You're basically holding up a straw man. The 'many eyeballs' argument
    > doesn't require that *every single user* of OSS must personally
    > examine the code. It only requires that *sufficiently many* do. For
    > the larger projects, that happens; for the smaller ones, perhaps it
    > doesn't.


    If it's a strawman it's not MY strawman argument. It an 'argument' that
    *every* Linux/OSS advocate users. Strange how it becomes a strawman when
    someone like me uses it huh......
    I dont believe for one minute that every Linux/OSS user 'eyeballs' the
    code to find, report, and/or fix the bugs. I do however believe that a
    *LOT* of Linux/OSS users/advocates rely on others to do that for them,
    and then claim they're safe because *SOMEONE ELSE* is eyeballing the
    code....

    > People who *understand* OSS, understand this. I'm sorry that you have
    > been misled by those who wave around the phrase "many eyeballs"
    > without sufficiently explaining it; perhaps without sufficiently
    > understanding it themselves. It happens, I'm afraid.


    I haven't been mislead by this belief that so many Linux user hold; Just
    by reading numerous Linux/OSS websites stops any belief like that in
    it's tracks. It's a shame so many Linux/OSS users/advocates are blinded
    by their beliefs isn't it......

    >> Because they DO exist. In abundance. Just check out the websites I
    >> have listed for evidence of the ones that have been found.....


    > Sure they do. I maintain a subscription to the Red Hat Network, and
    > install security updates weekly.


    >> That BS. I have been running MS Windows OS'es since 1991-92; I have
    >> never had any virus, or worm on my various computers and OS'es.


    > Count yourself lucky, then.


    Luck has nothing to do with it.
    I know how to maintain my computers and the OS'es I choose to run on
    them. It's basic to using a computer.

    >> There is a lot the ordinary user can do when running
    >> Windows to make their computer and it's OS safe as possible without
    >> needing to access/view the source code. In Windows it's as simple
    >> and as basic as installing a firewall, and anti-virus program, and
    >> keeping up to date with MS updates.
    >> The 'ordinary' user in OSS/Linux has to do a damned sight more than
    >> that to achieve the same result.....


    > I installed a firewall, I don't need an anti-virus program (see
    > previous discussion - not that you believe it), and I keep up to date
    > with Red Hat updates. What's your point?


    Well if you believe you dont need an anti-virus program then you will
    need a considerable amount of luck.....

    FYI
    http://networking.earthweb.com/netos/article.php/625211
    http://www.viruslist.com/eng/virusli...&findTxt=linux
    http://www.claymania.com/unix-viruses.html
    http://www.zdnet.com.au/itmanager/te...0275738,00.htm
    http://www.virusbtn.com/magazine/arc...0304/linux.xml

    > Okay, I had to hand-tweak the firewall, but only because my needs are
    > considerably more exotic than Joe User. (I've got a small home
    > network, plus I want to remote-control the box from work.) Joe
    > User's needs are 100% met by a "Security Level" program: GUI, with
    > one drop-down list and half a dozen check boxes.


    >> Nothing like COLA. There are some real 'nutcases' in that forum
    >> who 'advocate' for OSS/Linux.....
    >> Saying things like OSS/Linux is going to save the whole world from
    >> a new dark age, that using Linux set's you 'free,' that it's such a
    >> liberating 'experience' to become a Linux user, etc, etc.....


    > These are also oversimplifications.


    >> They're the *EXACT* words of Linux 'advocates' it that forum. Perhaps
    >> you should take their 'over simplifications' up with them huh.... ;-)


    > As a matter of fact, that's exactly what we do. The last thing we
    > want is for them to ruin the message by presenting a screwed-up
    > version of it.


    > Using Linux sets you free *if*
    > you approach it in the right way. It doesn't magically implement
    > the "Do What I Mean" chip instruction...


    >> Set me free from *what exactly?* They're JUST computer operating
    >> systems Ed......


    > And you pay how much for 'em? Every how many months?


    I'm quite willing pay for products and services that I want/need Ed.....
    For The MS Os'es I have had installed on my computers the *one off*
    purchase price has been very reasonable, especially as I have been using
    some of them for 12+ years....
    BTW you are aware that there is NO monthly payment for using MS OS'es
    and applications.....

    >> Or run their computer securely so they dont need to switch accounts
    >> to maintain the computer.


    > Please define what you mean by "run their computer securely".


    >> Like I do.....
    >> The basics; Firewall, up to date anti-virus protection, up to date
    >> with updates and patches. That will take care of 99% of the risks.


    > That's certainly a lot better. Running as non-administrator takes
    > care of a decent chunk (viruses) of that last 1%.
    > To be fair, while Outlook Express gets lots of flak for its history
    > of laxity against viruses, a lot of viruses aren't OE's fault--
    > they're the fault of users who just click on any damn thing that
    > shows up in their e-mail. Let's fix *that* problem first.


    Clueless users again. Cant blame the OS or app for that, especially as
    OE6 automatically runs in the restricted zone, and blocks ALL
    attachments to emails by default.
    It also just takes one tick in a user selectable option to make all
    emails and newsgroup message display as plain (ASCII) text.
    A little bit more work on the part of the user also makes all sent
    emails and newsgroup messages plain (ASCII) text as well.....

    > Security by obscurity. Bad approach. (Trapdoor ciphers are a good
    > counterexample: even with complete source code for the encryption
    > and decryption algorithms, and an encoding key, it takes huge
    > amounts of computation to find the corresponding decoding key.)


    >> That 'security by obscurity must apply to Linux/OSS then, given all
    >> the fixes that are listed on the Linux websites.... They're flaws
    >> in the OS and apps that get discovered and fixed. No one knows about
    >> them (not even the programmer apparently) until they are discovered
    >> and fixed. Security by obscurity......


    > Okay, a bit more explanation:


    > 1) OSS authors can and do create bugs sometimes.


    Sometimes?
    The websites I list for Linux have WEEKLY updates. Often they're new
    bugs, otherwise they're variations or repeats of old bugs....

    > Nobody's perfect.


    Then OSS/Linux advocates need to stop demanding that MS has to be
    perfect, while they, Linux/OSS bugs are just because Linux/OSS
    programmers are *only human.*

    > But that's not "security", that's just bugs.


    Which open vulnerabilities and security holes in the OS and apps......

    > 2) Non-OSS authors have the temptation to *deliberately* invoke
    > security through obscurity. "Eh, this code is messy / might
    > contain a security hole somewhere, but how likely is it that
    > anyone would actually find it?"


    That's BS and simply bad OSS/Linux advocacy. What with the attention
    paid to bugs, vulnerabilities, and security flaws in the Windows OS and
    applications (even third party ones) there is a very strong disincentive
    for that to happen. That's not saying it doesn't happen, just that it's
    not a temptation....

    > OSS authors don't really have
    > this option; on the contrary, it feeds their ego to write good
    > solid code, because some other people will end up reading it.



    I could suggest that because of the belief that others can read the code
    allows for that to happen; Write the code, let others who read the code
    find the bugs to fix....
    In fact going by the Linux websites that list all the bugs that would
    seem to be the reality.......

    http://www.securityfocus.com/news/19
    http://news.com.com/2100-1001-830130.html
    http://www.developer.com/open/article.php/983621

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


  12. Re: M$ attack on Common Sense

    On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 16:47:30 +1200, Max Burke wrote:

    >> Oh, for heaven's sake, the presence of a "delete file" command enables
    >> a virus to work! Look, here's a Linux virus:
    >> #!/bin/sh
    >> rm -rf ~/*

    >
    > That would work in Linux without the user knowing it was working?


    Well, not for very long. A similar "virus" could introduce subtle
    changes to text and/or HTML files; if it were a little smart, then
    it could even use 'touch' to reset the time-last-modified to its
    original value.

    >>> But listen to many/most Linux/OSS users/advocates you'd think
    >>> Linux/OSS doesn't have flaws and vulnerabilities. It does, and
    >>> ANYONE who claims otherwise is spouting BS. It's certainly NOT
    >>> advocacy for Linux IMO.....

    >
    >> If you *think* that, then either (a) you're not listening carefully
    >> enough, or (b) you're listening to people who aren't thinking
    >> carefully enough. Or both. Unfortunately, (b) does happen, yes.

    >
    > Try reading COLA; Try talking to the likes of Alan, sinister midget,
    > etc,etc; Try reading the *numerous* websites that advocate Linux....
    > ;-)


    I'm familiar with Alan (unfortunately).
    Alan != many/most (fortunately).
    He may be most of the ones that you notice, though.

    > I dont believe for one minute that every Linux/OSS user 'eyeballs' the
    > code to find, report, and/or fix the bugs. I do however believe that a
    > *LOT* of Linux/OSS users/advocates rely on others to do that for them,
    > and then claim they're safe because *SOMEONE ELSE* is eyeballing the
    > code....


    Because lots of someone-elses, you mean.

    >>> Set me free from *what exactly?* They're JUST computer operating
    >>> systems Ed......

    >
    >> And you pay how much for 'em? Every how many months?

    >
    > I'm quite willing pay for products and services that I want/need Ed.....


    So am I - *unless* there exists a free alternative that meets my
    needs. And so there does.

    > For The MS Os'es I have had installed on my computers the *one off*
    > purchase price has been very reasonable, especially as I have been using
    > some of them for 12+ years....


    Windows 3.1[1] or DOS, then?

    > BTW you are aware that there is NO monthly payment for using MS OS'es
    > and applications.....


    There's no monthly payment for using my OS, either. Not even for
    a personal subscription to the Red Hat Network for updates (I just
    fill out a super-brief survey every two months). How much does a
    subscription to MSDN cost?

    > Clueless users again. Cant blame the OS or app for that, especially as
    > OE6 automatically runs in the restricted zone, and blocks ALL
    > attachments to emails by default.


    Good - they fixed it.

    > It also just takes one tick in a user selectable option to make all
    > emails and newsgroup message display as plain (ASCII) text.


    This is a UI issue.

    > A little bit more work on the part of the user also makes all sent
    > emails and newsgroup messages plain (ASCII) text as well.....


    And *this* is just plain annoying. Most of the (non-spam) HTML mails
    I get are set to a font size of *2*! And they don't even contain any
    non-ASCII formatting, so there's no reason for them to be HTML! (The
    usual complaint about "bandwidth-wasting stationery" is one that I
    almost never see, although I think it pops up from time to time in
    some of my wife's chattier mailing lists.)

    Sending in ASCII should be the default.


  13. Re: M$ attack on Common Sense

    > Ed Murphy scribbled:

    >> On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 16:47:30 +1200, Max Burke wrote:


    > And you pay how much for 'em? Every how many months?


    >> I'm quite willing pay for products and services that I want/need
    >> Ed.....


    > So am I - *unless* there exists a free alternative that meets my
    > needs. And so there does.


    >> For The MS Os'es I have had installed on my computers the *one off*
    >> purchase price has been very reasonable, especially as I have been
    >> using some of them for 12+ years....


    > Windows 3.1[1] or DOS, then?


    yes. Also Windows for Workgroups; And Windows 95a. But then I also have
    OS2 from 1994, Linux slackware from 1995, Knoppix (which wont even run
    on my P4 due to not having hardware drivers) IPCop, SmoothWall, and
    Coyote Linux.....

    >> BTW you are aware that there is NO monthly payment for using MS OS'es
    >> and applications.....


    > There's no monthly payment for using my OS, either. Not even for
    > a personal subscription to the Red Hat Network for updates (I just
    > fill out a super-brief survey every two months). How much does a
    > subscription to MSDN cost?


    Dont know. Dont use MSDN.

    >> Clueless users again. Cant blame the OS or app for that, especially
    >> as OE6 automatically runs in the restricted zone, and blocks ALL
    >> attachments to emails by default.


    > Good - they fixed it.


    And users are whining and bitching that they cant view attachments,
    complaining that links in emails dont work, that they cant see the
    'pretty pictures and fonts (html code) anymore....

    >> It also just takes one tick in a user selectable option to make all
    >> emails and newsgroup message display as plain (ASCII) text.


    > This is a UI issue.


    In the preview pane......

    >> A little bit more work on the part of the user also makes all sent
    >> emails and newsgroup messages plain (ASCII) text as well.....


    > And *this* is just plain annoying. Most of the (non-spam) HTML mails
    > I get are set to a font size of *2*! And they don't even contain any
    > non-ASCII formatting, so there's no reason for them to be HTML! (The
    > usual complaint about "bandwidth-wasting stationery" is one that I
    > almost never see, although I think it pops up from time to time in
    > some of my wife's chattier mailing lists.)
    > Sending in ASCII should be the default.



    Microsoft (in OE) give users the option......

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


  14. Re: M$ attack on Common Sense

    On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 17:22:02 +1200, Max Burke wrote:

    >>> Clueless users again. Cant blame the OS or app for that, especially
    >>> as OE6 automatically runs in the restricted zone, and blocks ALL
    >>> attachments to emails by default.

    >
    >> Good - they fixed it.

    >
    > And users are whining and bitching that they cant view attachments,


    Well, I said "good", not "perfect". It would probably suffice to
    strip executables, warn about zip files (which may contain executables)
    and Office documents (which may contain macro viruses), and launch
    other attachments without complaint. Assuming that you don't re-introduce
    the following bug, present in at least some earlier versions of OE:

    a) Virus lies about its MIME type, claiming to be a graphic or sound file
    b) OE looks at MIME type and says "Windows, launch this!"
    c) Windows says "Okay! It's an executable; I'll execute it."

    > complaining that links in emails dont work,


    Some other programs display ASCII text while still detecting URLs and
    making them clickable. (I consider this acceptable.) Does OE not do
    this? Or does the restricted zone prevent them from launching?

    > that they cant see the 'pretty pictures and fonts (html code) anymore....


    My mail reader's preview window renders text fonts/styles, and
    placeholders where images should go. You want to see more, you
    right-click and select "view in browser". I think that's a very
    good way to strike a balance.

    >> Sending in ASCII should be the default.

    >
    > Microsoft (in OE) give users the option......


    I said it should be the *default*, not that it should be locked in. Or
    are you saying that OE allows users to change the default to ASCII? (If
    so, then that's still bad; it should install with default=ASCII, and
    allow users to change it to default=HTML if they're really hung up on
    stationery.)


  15. Re: M$ attack on Common Sense

    Max Burke writes:
    > > conover@email.rahul.net scribbled:
    > > Sure, Jean-David. There are a lot of effective solutions to the buffer
    > > overrun problem. Some, as you point out, are quite straight
    > > forward-even elegant in their simplicity.

    >
    > > My point was, though, that a quarter of a century old commercial
    > > software company shouldn't be having these kinds of problems.

    >
    > Neither should Linux/OSS given that so many users [supposedly] eyeball
    > the code to prevent such things happening.....
    > Any Linux/OSS user want to explain why they still do happen in
    > Linux/OSS?
    >
    > 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/


    But its unclear whether Linux has more bugs, or the OSS peer review of
    code finds more-which are disclosed publicly. However, another
    important URL:

    http://www.cert.org/summaries/CS-2003-03.html

    where the CERT incident response team issued 15 advisories for
    Microsoft products, 3 for Cisco, and 0 for all brands of Unix and
    Linux, in the last 90 days.

    But you are right. Both Linux and Microsoft have far too many security
    bugs, in comparison to the other OSs like Solaris or the BSDs, or even
    OS-X.

    August was not a good month for Linux, either:

    http://www.globetechnology.com/servl...ry/Technology/

    from a cracked systems POV. (Look at BSD's numbers in that page.)

    John

    --

    John Conover, conover@email.rahul.net, http://www.rahul.net/~conover


  16. Re: M$ attack on Common Sense

    "Sinister Midget" wrote in message
    news:42r0kb.bbq.ln@host.newsservicer.org...
    > As User so eloquently gibbered on Sun, 14 Sep 2003 at 03:21 GMT:
    >
    > What source trees? I installed all of the 7.x series and found nothing
    > missing.


    I guess you were not trying to use the stuff I was...

    > I also compiled kernels in all of those versions. I was using Redhat
    > (the one that has the guy with the red hat). What were you using?


    If you don't know what it was don't let it worry you. They are up to
    version 10 now. I wonder how many idiosyncracies that has in it.

    > --
    > Linux: Because you can!





  17. Re: M$ attack on Common Sense

    As User so eloquently gibbered on Sun, 14 Sep 2003 at 06:48 GMT:

    > "Sinister Midget" wrote in message
    > news:42r0kb.bbq.ln@host.newsservicer.org...
    >> As User so eloquently gibbered on Sun, 14 Sep 2003 at 03:21 GMT:
    >>
    >> What source trees? I installed all of the 7.x series and found nothing
    >> missing.

    >
    > I guess you were not trying to use the stuff I was...
    >
    >> I also compiled kernels in all of those versions. I was using Redhat
    >> (the one that has the guy with the red hat). What were you using?

    >
    > If you don't know what it was don't let it worry you. They are up to
    > version 10 now. I wonder how many idiosyncracies that has in it.


    I wouldn't know. I install Mandrake these days for my own use. I did
    install Redhat and made sure it's functional on some machines I've
    built for sale in the recent past, and I used to use it regularly over
    several years. I decided to move along a few months back, though. And
    I'm likely going to go with Mandrake on future machines I sell.

    For my own use, either Gentoo (likely) or Debian will be next.

    --
    BugBear - Innovative Microsoft peer-to-peer software at its finest!

  18. Re: M$ attack on Common Sense

    On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 at 05:22 GMT, Max Burke wrote:
    >> Ed Murphy scribbled:

    >
    >>> On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 16:47:30 +1200, Max Burke wrote:
    >>> Clueless users again. Cant blame the OS or app for that, especially
    >>> as OE6 automatically runs in the restricted zone, and blocks ALL
    >>> attachments to emails by default.

    >
    >> Good - they fixed it.

    >
    > And users are whining and bitching that they cant view attachments,
    > complaining that links in emails dont work, that they cant see the
    > 'pretty pictures and fonts (html code) anymore....


    Then they still haven't got it right. If they don't know the
    difference between viewing a data file and executing arbitrary
    code then they are even more clueless than I thought.

    --
    Chris F.A. Johnson http://cfaj.freeshell.org
    ================================================== =================
    My code (if any) in this post is copyright 2003, Chris F.A. Johnson
    and may be copied under the terms of the GNU General Public License

  19. Re: M$ attack on Common Sense

    > Ed Murphy scribbled:

    >> Max Burke wrote:
    >> Clueless users again. Cant blame the OS or app for that, especially
    >> as OE6 automatically runs in the restricted zone, and blocks ALL
    >> attachments to emails by default.


    > Good - they fixed it.


    >> And users are whining and bitching that they cant view attachments,


    > Well, I said "good", not "perfect". It would probably suffice to
    > strip executables, warn about zip files (which may contain
    > executables) and Office documents (which may contain macro viruses),
    > and launch
    > other attachments without complaint.


    It's a default block on all attachments; The user has to explicitly
    allow certain file types through by deleting the file extensions from
    the IE unsafe files list. (the hard way)
    More info at:
    http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;EN-US;291387

    The easy way is to go to:

    Tools
    Options
    Clear do not allow attachments...

    (use at your own risk....)

    > Assuming that you don't
    > re-introduce the following bug, present in at least some earlier
    > versions of OE:
    > a) Virus lies about its MIME type, claiming to be a graphic or sound
    > file b) OE looks at MIME type and says "Windows, launch this!"
    > c) Windows says "Okay! It's an executable; I'll execute it."


    I dont think it does that now as OE automatically runs in IE's
    restricted zone and that is blocked in this zone.

    >> complaining that links in emails dont work,


    > Some other programs display ASCII text while still detecting URLs and
    > making them clickable. (I consider this acceptable.) Does OE not do
    > this? Or does the restricted zone prevent them from launching?


    Yes it does, so it again relies on the user to know what they're doing,
    and that the link is safe.
    As far as I'm aware though it will only allow the links to be
    'clickable' if the website is listed in IE as a trusted website, one
    that the user has added to the trusted zone.

    >> that they cant see the 'pretty pictures and fonts (html code)
    >> anymore....


    > My mail reader's preview window renders text fonts/styles, and
    > placeholders where images should go. You want to see more, you
    > right-click and select "view in browser". I think that's a very
    > good way to strike a balance.


    OE will display full HTML in the preview pane, but again only for
    websites loaded in IE's trusted zone.

    >>> Sending in ASCII should be the default.


    >> Microsoft (in OE) give users the option......


    > I said it should be the *default*, not that it should be locked in.
    > Or are you saying that OE allows users to change the default to
    > ASCII?


    Yes.

    To read in plain text:
    Tools
    Options
    Read
    Read all messages in plain text.

    To send in plain text:
    Tools
    Options
    Mail & news sending format
    Plain text

    > (If so, then that's still bad; it should install with
    > default=ASCII, and allow users to change it to default=HTML if
    > they're really hung up on stationery.)


    It doesn't, and still has the annoying habit/bug that when dragging a
    message to a new newsgroup (to reply to) of over-riding plain text
    settings with the default font (Unicode UTF8) which stuffs up text
    formating/quoting when using third party add ons like OE Quote fix...

    Another bug MS fixed in OE and IE recently was the one where a simple
    html instruction would crash IE and OE when going to a website or
    opening an e-mail reading a newsgroup message that had the html code in
    it.

    They still haven't fixed the 'begin' bug in OE though....

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


  20. Re: M$ attack on Common Sense

    > conover@email.rahul.net scribbled:

    >> Max Burke writes:


    > conover@email.rahul.net scribbled:
    > Sure, Jean-David. There are a lot of effective solutions to the
    > buffer overrun problem. Some, as you point out, are quite straight
    > forward-even elegant in their simplicity.


    >>> My point was, though, that a quarter of a century old commercial
    >>> software company shouldn't be having these kinds of problems.


    >> Neither should Linux/OSS given that so many users [supposedly]
    >> eyeball the code to prevent such things happening.....
    >> Any Linux/OSS user want to explain why they still do happen in
    >> Linux/OSS?
    >> 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/


    > But its unclear whether Linux has more bugs, or the OSS peer review of
    > code finds more-which are disclosed publicly. However, another
    > important URL:


    > http://www.cert.org/summaries/CS-2003-03.html
    > where the CERT incident response team issued 15 advisories for
    > Microsoft products, 3 for Cisco, and 0 for all brands of Unix and
    > Linux, in the last 90 days.


    > But you are right. Both Linux and Microsoft have far too many security
    > bugs, in comparison to the other OSs like Solaris or the BSDs, or even
    > OS-X.
    > August was not a good month for Linux, either:
    >

    http://www.globetechnology.com/servl...ry/Technology/
    > from a cracked systems POV. (Look at BSD's numbers in that page.)



    I dont play the numbers game......
    Just because one OS has bug reports at any particular time does not
    alter the fact that other OS'es have bugs as well.....

    I could suggest that MS has so many 'reported' bugs because so many are
    looking for them, just to have their 15 minutes of fame in the IT world.
    ROTFLOL

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


+ Reply to Thread
Page 8 of 10 FirstFirst ... 6 7 8 9 10 LastLast