To the OP: Wintroll FUD about alleged insecurity refuted (was: Re: Linux why?)

*Note* *to* *readers:* The poster I'm replying to is obviously a clear
troll. However, since newbies are involved and other newbies might be
lurking, I will elaborate and refute the trolls claims below.

On Friday 08 December 2006 01:22, Sean stood up and addressed the masses
in /comp.os.linux.misc/ as follows...:

In article <1165536449.218316.230020@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
charleylandscapes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx says...

Guys calm down a bit, I came here to vent after being frustrated with
trying to install an application and posed the question why? I
expected to get intelligent answers which would make me think that
Linux isn't so bad after all and that I should be patient and in time,
after reading a few posts and a little perseverance the rewards of
using an open source OS would become clear. [...]

Can we all calm down now and can I have some helpful advice, please?

You've got as much chance as a Linux Gigabit Ethernet driver actually
working mate.

Wow! I don't know where you get your Gigabit Ethernet drivers from, but
I've never heard of any problems with them, unless if you're going for
something exotic that needs a proprietary (and thus non-free closed-source)
driver.

My guess is that you were trying to install your Crimosoft Glassware drivers
in GNU/Linux, and your conspicuous degree of cluelessness absolutely opens
up that possibility.

I offered my thoughts earlier [...

Very disruptive thoughts. Too disruptive to be coincidental.

as from your original post I felt maybe you weren't readt for Linux

Maybe he is, and maybe he's not. In other words, he's the perfect candidate
to aim your trolling FUD at, isn't he? Crimosoft must pay well these days
for those willing to sell their souls.

But then again, people selling their souls so willingly are typically people
who don't have a soul to begin with, aren't they?

...] & just wanted to point out that despite what some think unless you
know Linux it is no more secure then Windows.

Coming from you, I'm sure that's very credible, right? Well, unlike the
original poster, I myself happen to have a clue in this matter. GNU/Linux
*is* far more secure than Windows will *ever* be.

Windows is an excuse for an operating system that evolved from MS-DOS, a
poor rip-off of CP/M intended for computers that couldn't even handle hard
disks hardware-wise, and aimed solely at single-tasking and single-user
functionality.

DOS evolved into OS/2 - a joint venture between IBM and Crimosoft -
and /His/ /Gatesness/ decided that Crimosoft could make a lot more money
focussing on Windows, which was a graphical user interface for MS-DOS that
also allowed making use of the memory above the 640 KB border through some
very complex procedures - whereas OS/2 could access that memory natively -
and which allowed to run multiple programs simultaneously via cooperative
multitasking, just like a MacIntosh of those days.

Windows 95 was an evolution to this theme. It offered preemptive
multitasking as opposed to cooperative multitasking, but still ran on top
of MS-DOS. However, you could no longer separate DOS from Windows or use
Windows 95 on another version of DOS. Windows 98 and Windows ME were only
evolutions to the same rip-off.

Enter Windows NT. A microkernel which was largely stolen from VMS, onto
which a 32-bit Windows kernel was bolted. Security was also bolted on via
the NTFS filesystem and ACL's. But this security was *clearly* only bolted
on, because Windows could still be installed on a FAT32 partition, which
doesn't support ACL's.

Bye bye security, not to mention that the so-called multi-user functionality
of Windows NT - and derived versions such as Windows 2000, XP, 2003 Server
and Vista - are all just bolted onto the Win32 kernel, with bypassable
hooks into the NT microkernel. And then we're not even going to get into
Crimosoft's idea of "security by obscurity", i.e. "it's all okay if the
software contains serious flaws, because as long as nobody complains about
it, no harm is done; we'll cross that bridge if we come to it".

At the very basis, Windows is still only an upscale version of DOS. It's
now got a graphical user interface and it allows for multitasking. But it
still uses the same drive letter designations as back when PC's didn't even
have hard disks - which is why the floppy drive is still called /A:/ - and
it's still only intended to be used by one person at the time. Networking
is still as it was in the earliest versions of Windows that did have
networking, i.e. with a TCP/IP stack "borrowed" from BSD.

GNU/Linux on the other hand stems from proprietary UNIX. It comprises of
two major components: GNU and Linux. GNU is a free - as in "freedom" -
UNIX clone written from scratch by Richard Stallman and the other guys
at /gnu.org,/ and was already released in its earliest development stages
in 1983, as a free alternative to proprietary UNIX, so that the people
using and working with the code would be free to use it as they see fit,
and not as the company they got it from says.

Linux is a kernel only - most people think it's an entire operating system,
but it isn't - and was also written from scratch by Linus Torvalds and
friends in 1991. It is a monolithic UNIX-like and POSIX-compliant kernel,
and it's licensed under the same GPL as GNU is.

GNU natively had a revolutionary microkernel design - Mach/Hurd - which is
still under development as we speak and thus has been for over 20 years
already. However, the Free Software Foundation was satisfied, as the
GNU/Linux combination has achieved the purpose: i.e. to have a completely
free - as in freedom - operating system.

As this operating system is a UNIX-clone, it was by no means intended to be
an alternative - not to mention a competitor - for Microsoft Windows.
Windows was still not a mainstream OS when the Linux kernel was written,
and didn't even exist yet when GNU was written.

And Windows still isn't a mature operating system, and will never be. In
order to make such an operating system, Crimosoft would not only have to
totally rewrite Windows, but they'd also have to totally redesign it, and
so the endresult wouldn't be Windows anymore.

And for a word on UNIX now...: The original UNIX was developed in the late
1960's at Bell Labs. Although it was originally intended just so Ken
Thompson and Dennis Ritchie could play games on an unused PDP-7 in their
spare time, it was later on rewritten into C and was used internally at
AT&T - where Thompson and Richie worked - to process copyright documents.
A little later, it was released to the public as a commercial operating
system. The name UNIX was originally spelled "Unics" and was a pun on the
name "Multics".

From the start, UNIX ran on a multi-user minicomputer. As it was multi-user
by design, it also had the required security built into the system. It's
entire design is far more secure than the design of Windows. It only uses
filesystems with permission masks and file ownerships. It doesn't rely on
the filename ending in a certain "dot plus three characters" extension for
a file to be executable. Instead, a file is given an execute permission in
the filesystem itself, on three levels: for the owner of the file, for the
group to which the owner belongs and for all others.

Each of these permissions can be set individually. Likewise for read and
write permissions, and given that files are placed in directories, the
actual permissions a given user has on a file depend on both the
permissions this user has for the file itself and the permissions he has
for the directory containing the file.

This in itself is a very versatile and secure set-up, but on top of that,
GNU/Linux and many other UNIX systems can also make use of ACL's to offer
more finely tuned permissions.

Unlike in Windows - where you have to run as Administrator to be able to
work comfortably with the system - UNIX systems are designed so that all
normal work can be done - and must be done - as a regular, unprivileged
user. The system administrator account - also known as "the root account"
- is only to be used for system administration.

The root user has write permissions on everything and can do everything
logically imaginable with the system, while in Windows certain files need
to be locked to protect Windows from itself. This is one of the reasons -
albeit certainly not the only one - why Windows needs to be rebooted on a
regular basis, and why you need to boot Windows into the so-called "safe
mode" before you can do certain administrative tasks.

So the distinction here is that the actual and practical Windows system
administration requires botting up in "safe mode" while the Administrator
account is the "recommended" way for working - e.g. so as to be able to
play certain games - hereby leaving the system's integrity even more
exposed than it already is via the loads of security holes, the perpetual
beta-state of the code and the bypassable bolted-on security, while UNIX
systems are designed to allow everyone to work safely from within an
unprivileged account on a cleanly written system - which via the open
source code of GNU/Linux is being tightly maintained and checked for
weaknesses or bugs - on a stable, versatile, scalable and flexable platform
that was intended to stay up 24/7 and never requires a reboot, unless the
running kernel needs to be replaced, or unless hardware maintenance
requires a shutdown.

They were purely my own thoughts based on your post,

Very disruptive thoughts, with very disruptive and perverse intentions.

for you to take or leave but as I also pointed out, there are very few
reasonable posters in these groups.

There are quite a lot of reasonable posters in these groups, but you're not
one of them. You are quite clearly a troll, and you are here to spread FUD
(Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) among the newbies.

You saw a target and you couldn't resist taking advantage of it. Perhaps it
is what you're being paid to do.

There are Wintrolls who rage against GNU/Linux and its users because they're
frustrated over their own ignorance or stupidity being exposed by their own
confrontations with this operating system. But on the other hand, there
are those who are more subtle and seek to accomplish exactly what you've
tried doing here. And these are usually people earning a little on the
side as employees in Crimosoft's FUD machine.

This one was the first who got exposed...

http://lists.essential.org/1998/am-info/msg01529.html

.... but I'm sure the CrimoSerf's have gotten a lot more subtle since then.
After all, Crimosoft can't afford another scandal like this one now, can
they?

BTW if you want a really decent OS for free download Solaris 10 X86.

And what exactly is better than GNU/Linux about Solaris? They are both
UNIX-style operating systems, and they are comparable in quality. The main
difference however is that a GNU/Linux distribution like Mandriva will
cater much more to the needs and inexperience of a newbie than Solaris
will.

In addition, although there are rumors that Solaris will be released under
the GPL, last I checked it still wasn't free as in "freedom", while most of
the software included in a typical GNU/Linux distribution *is.*

Now please go on back to Mr. Ballmer and tell him that you feel so guilty
about having failed miserably in your task that you won't be accepting his
paycheck.

--
With kind regards,

*Aragorn*
(registered GNU/Linux user #223157)
.