On Saturday 12 June 2004 11:01 am, dmc wrote:

Scott Leighton wrote:

...

On Saturday 12 June 2004 10:44 am, Donn Washburn wrote:

...

Care to straighten this Guy out?

" http://www.hal-pc.org/journal/2004/05_may/buying.html "

Not really, he's dead on right. I agree with him 100%.

Scott

He is only partially correct and burying half-truths and uninformed perspective within a presumably thoughtful article leads to others parroting the same unclear thinking.

He needs to start with the context that hardware is only difficult to address because hardware manufacturers release inadequately complete driver sets.

Why, he's talking about his experience with a Linux distribution versus Windows. What makes you think that he is obligated to explain his experience in terms of what hardware mfgs choose to do or not do.

He needs to observe that even when hardware manufacturers market defective devices (e.g. winmodems) Linux folks have been able work around some of that junk and force functionality.

Ditto. He's a user, a user could care less about the politics of whether or not manufacturers choose to support any particular OS. A user simply cares about whether or not the box 'works'.

He also needs to observe that a pattern of Microsoft manipulation has long-since been documented wherein they have pressured hardware manufacturers to refuse to release sufficient data to allow Linux folks to do what they (the manuafacturer) should -- package Linux drivers along with MS and Mac drivers.

That crap is nothing but excuses. A user cares nothing about it and frankly is sounds like whining to me.

He needs to note that SuSE 9 and 9.1 and Mandrake 10 and other newer distros load and run with similar levels of ease to XP -- but that just as with XP one must choose approved hardware -- because XP will not run on any hardware anywhere anytime -- though there are far more companies configuring their PC's to favor XP compatibility than those doing so for Linux -- the advantage of M$'s current superior user-base position in the marketplace.

You are flat out wrong. There is no similarity in ease of use between Linux distros and XP. XP wins hands down. You have an agenda you want to push, the author doesn't. I like Linux and am now a SuSE user of a little over 1 month. I have no intention of going back to windows, but the fact is that none of the Linux distros are ready for home desktop use by the typical non-technical user. It is far too complicated to get things running and configured correctly and the author of the article hit it right on in his points.

'nuff said.

Whatever. Scott

HTH ... dmc

-- Blessings ... dmc West Central Florida ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ This E-mail was generated using SuSE 9.0 Linux & Mozilla. This PC is free of all Microsoft products. Visit: www.suse.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

-- POPFile, the OpenSource EMail Classifier http://popfile.sourceforge.net/ Linux 2.6.4-54.5-default

-----Original Message----- From: John Andersen To: suse-linux-e@suse.com Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 11:13:48 -0800 Subject: Re: [SLE] Not So Fast: Linux on the Desktop

Its just as difficult to get XP configured correctly. And those configurations are not consolidated in Yast but hidden all over a dozen control panel applets, many of which seemingly have nothing to do with what you are trying to configure. Some are burried so deep you have to google for them. Plug in a wireless card while hardwired to your local network and XP decides it should bridge the two!

You are simply more familiar with XP. Had you chosen XP as your first windows OS after being familiar with Linux for several years you be shakeing your head in disgust.

You have an agenda you want to push, and its obvious.

-- _____________________________________ John Andersen

Makes me wonder who all of these so called authors are. Also makes me wonder how many M$ employees are on this and other linux lists for the sole purpose of trying to create a stink in the linux community. Ken

-----Original Message----- From: "Damon Jebb" To: Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2004 00:49:11 +0100 Subject: RE: [SLE] Not So Fast: Linux on the Desktop

Ken Schneider wrote 12 June 2004 20:40

...

Makes me wonder who all of these so called authors are. Also makes me wonder how many M$ employees are on this and other linux lists for

the

...

sole purpose of trying to create a stink in the linux community.

Ken

What utter paranoia!! I have been using and working with Linux for manay years, have never had any connection with MS and have what I consider to be a better than average understanding of computers and operating systems. I feel that many Linux advocates are blind to what makes windows good and fail to understand why many users who hear of the wonders of free software don't stick with it - it's because it doesn't work easily, out of the box. OK, there are cases where XP and its apps don't either, but they're getting fewer for your standard office and internet uses.

Accepted XP could be securer, could be ready patched out of the box. But SuSE 9.1 never will be (ready pathced). There will be 'security patches' to be downloaded if you want it to be secure against any newly discovered vulnerabilities, and there will be many of them before it is no longer available on the local computer store shelf.

I'm not commenting to raise a stink in the linux community - I don't care much if it does though. I am trying to put a more measured perspective on the argument, from an experienced user of both operating systems. As I said on another thread, as far as I'm concerned Linux is great for servers, not for the desktop.

Damon

Just as I suspected, a M$ troll. If you had the experience that you claim you would have been able to work through the problems. M$ is M$, LINUX is LINUX. No different than comparing win98 to XP. Things are in differnet places. Microsofts main problem is in -not- educating people on how to actually use and trouble shoot problems. Their answer is re-install. OH. It is not paranoia it is truth. Ken

On Sunday 13 June 2004 06:49, Damon Jebb wrote: [snip]

As I said on another thread, as far as I'm concerned Linux is great for servers, not for the desktop.

Damon

hmmm, as far as I'm concerned Linux is great on my desktop, indeed! Being able to multiboot Linux is the clear winner, whenever at boot time I have to make the decision which OS to boot. I wonder if you are really working with Linux on the desktop? May be you should give it a try. On my new desktop I did reserve a partition to install Windose, but having not much time I skipped it to do it later, when I would need it. Well, the need was never strong enough to actually invest the time to install it, the partition is still empty ;-) regards, Matt

On Sat, 2004-06-12 at 19:49, Damon Jebb wrote:

Ken Schneider wrote 12 June 2004 20:40

...

Makes me wonder who all of these so called authors are. Also makes me wonder how many M$ employees are on this and other linux lists for the sole purpose of trying to create a stink in the linux community.

Ken

What utter paranoia!! I have been using and working with Linux for manay years, have never had any connection with MS and have what I consider to be a better than average understanding of computers and operating systems. I feel that many Linux advocates are blind to what makes windows good and fail to understand why many users who hear of the wonders of free software don't stick with it - it's because it doesn't work easily, out of the box. OK, there are cases where XP and its apps don't either, but they're getting fewer for your standard office and internet uses.

Which of course begs the question when will Windows XP be ready for the desktop?

Accepted XP could be securer, could be ready patched out of the box. But SuSE 9.1 never will be (ready pathced). There will be 'security patches' to be downloaded if you want it to be secure against any newly discovered vulnerabilities, and there will be many of them before it is no longer available on the local computer store shelf.

Now the real question is, are these kernel patches, or are they sundry software vulnerabilities. I've been watching what security patches are available for SuSE 8.2, and if I were using a straight forward desktop, stripped to Windows desktop approach, my security vulnerabilities would be few and far between.

I'm not commenting to raise a stink in the linux community - I don't care much if it does though. I am trying to put a more measured perspective on the argument, from an experienced user of both operating systems. As I said on another thread, as far as I'm concerned Linux is great for servers, not for the desktop.

Unfortunately you haven't looked at all of the desktops versions available Damon. Like I mentioned before, there are those geared towards the type of situation you pose. You need to evaluate them. before concluding that GNU/Linux under X isn't suitable. Mike

On Sunday 13 June 2004 15:32, jfweber@bellsouth.net wrote:

This is a true statement, but you left out the part about; Should you connect to tne net, *before* you go get the security patches, chances are your machine wont be infected before you can get to the ftp site and get your patches!

Oh, yeah, and both Windows 2000 and XP include a basic packet filter you can enable before you online to get your patches. Both these have proved enough to keep Sasser and its buddies out until you have all the patches installed and your antivirus updated. -- Kind regards Hans du Plooy Newington Consulting Services hansdp at newingtoncs dot co dot za

On Sunday 13 June 2004 22:01, John Andersen wrote:

But Ma and Pa Polyester don't know about those, and they are hard to find and are not turned on by default. That's the problem.

OK, this is what I think. One can only provide so much hand holding. Ma and Pa Polyester must surely have heard on on the radio or seen on the tv/in the newspaper of all the worms/viri that's costing corporations millions. Now, even if Ma and Pa don't know what to do with that information, it should occur to them that there must be some danger lurking out there. I mean, if companies that pay IT guys good money to keep their systems running smoothly, still get infected, then obviously there must be some real threat. Wouldn't it be smart of them to find out a bit more? Failing all other sources of information, I'm sure the neighbour's 12 year old can point them in the right direction. :-) No seriously, people should realise what they can and cannot do. If they're not savvy enough to install windows without getting sassed or blasted, and they're too stupid to pay someone to do it, then they deserve what they get. The security problems with windows are well enough and often enough publicised that anyone who uses a computer should be aware. I spent the first three years of my IT carreer as a freelance techie - the local computer guy for a couple of households and small companies. At the very least half the money I made was a result of people's stupidity. Even after repeatedly trying to show them the right way. Instead of spending the initial amount on basic protection, they often ended up spending three or four times that on my per-hour rate to fix their resulting problems. And still they won't spend anything on basic protection. They suffer because of their own stupidity, and I don't feel sorry for them. As far as I am concerned they shouldn't be using computers. Yes, Windows is as insecure as it comes. But it takes very little to prevent against the worst threats. I'm tired of people who want to use sophisticated and powerful equipment without knowing the first thing about it. If they mess it up I really don't feel sorry for them. Just my opinion -- Kind regards Hans du Plooy Newington Consulting Services hansdp at newingtoncs dot co dot za

On Sunday 13 June 2004 17:07, Fred Miller wrote:

On Saturday June 12 2004 3:39 pm, Ken Schneider wrote:

[snip]

...

Makes me wonder who all of these so called authors are. Also makes me wonder how many M$ employees are on this and other linux lists for the sole purpose of trying to create a stink in the linux community.

It's VERY possible, KNOWING how paranoid and egotistical Ballmer is, that there are quite a few!!

Fred

-- Ronald Reagan 1911 - 2004 An American Patriot who hated Communism and Socialism, never brought shame upon himself, his family, his political offices or abused the trust of the American People. We love you and we wonder when another like you or Theodore Roosevelt will arise again. ...Which is why I am right next door to filtering out this thread. It was interesting, at first, but is now a major PITA. :-\ <LOL> -- ...CH SuSE 9 Works Linux user# 313696 Linux box# 199365

* Scott Leighton (helphand@pacbell.net) [040612 12:47]:

...

At any given time there are a million zombie XP machines spitting out spam and viruses because their non-technical users simply did what Microsoft Told them to do.

You are changing the subject. The author of the article wasn't comparing security, he was talking about user experience.

Nope. It's exactly on subject. After one has to setup virus checkers, spyware blockers, 3rd party firewalls and everything else one needs to be able to use the machine without it catching a cold and becoming unusable.. XP requires just as much configuring as Linux does with other things. So if it's not one thing or another being configured on XP, Linux or OSX.. it's another. They are all bloody the same. And if you think they aren't then you are fooling yourself. They all have their issues and to say one is easier then the other is just bullshite. Even the Powerbook that I'm typing this from has issues that have had to be fixed or configured.. and if you don't believe that then I could delete the softlink from /etc -> /private/etc and reboot the machine.. let a Mac user try to figure out what it takes to fix that. Or let me rename vga.sys in XP for the Windows user to figure out. They won't. So these two "easy" end user systems become unusable. Please don't show your newbie mentality by saying that all these oranges aren't orange.. because they are. They are all the same .. with maybe just different thickness in skin. They just have different issues that need to be addressed. /end rant -- "There is no need to teach that stars can fall out of the sky and land on a flat Earth in order to defend religious faith."

On Saturday 12 June 2004 1:10 pm, Steve Wagoner wrote:

I don't normally like to jump into flame wars, but this one is just too juicy to resist.

...

...

You are simply more familiar with XP.

No I'm not. I migrated from Win98 since I refuse to accept XP's EULA. My experience with XP is limited to watching co-workers who migrated from Win98 to XP use it.

Your statement about your frustration with the clipboard system just proves his point. It's not that one is inherently more user friendly than the other, they are just different. Not better or worse, different. After getting used to how it works I find it faster to just select text and middle click than to have to do all of the intermediary pointing and clicking. As a budding programmer the ability to store multiple items in the clipboard and paste them at will is invaluable.

You, and several others, have made some excellent points about my newness to Linux and familiarity with Windows clouding my viewpoint on the issue. You have valid points, I _have_ used Windows for years now and I _am_ used to things working a certain way, so yes, a part of the frustration in switching to SuSe Linux is related to the inevitable learning curve in understanding the differences between the way the two OS's approach things. But, that also makes my point. The home workstation market is made up of millions just like me. * We are used to being able to simply plug things in and they either work or they prompt you for a CD to get them to work. * We are used to installing programs that end up as icons on our task bar or desktop where we can easily find them. * We are used to being able to pop a DVD in and everything just works, the video, the sound, everything. There is no way my 70 year old mother is going to chase down rpm's to install from packman's site to get DVD's to work. Now, Apple has figured it out with their OS X. I just bought an eMachine for my son at college and I am very impressed with what Apple has done. It's not windows, it doesn't have to be, but there were no major jarring surprises in using the machine. When he installed programs, he got icons in logical places. DVD's played. CD's played. Everything worked. That's exactly where the various Linux distros need to get to when you talk about the home user workstation market. Until Linux distros do that, they will not penetrate to any large degree and that's the point of the author's article. Scott -- POPFile, the OpenSource EMail Classifier http://popfile.sourceforge.net/ Linux 2.6.4-54.5-default

Scott Leighton wrote:

On Saturday 12 June 2004 1:10 pm, Steve Wagoner wrote:

...

I don't normally like to jump into flame wars, but this one is just too juicy to resist.

...

...

You are simply more familiar with XP.

No I'm not. I migrated from Win98 since I refuse to accept XP's EULA. My experience with XP is limited to watching co-workers who migrated from Win98 to XP use it.

Your statement about your frustration with the clipboard system just proves his point. It's not that one is inherently more user friendly than the other, they are just different. Not better or worse, different. After getting used to how it works I find it faster to just select text and middle click than to have to do all of the intermediary pointing and clicking. As a budding programmer the ability to store multiple items in the clipboard and paste them at will is invaluable.

You, and several others, have made some excellent points about my newness to Linux and familiarity with Windows clouding my viewpoint on the issue.

You have valid points, I _have_ used Windows for years now and I _am_ used to things working a certain way, so yes, a part of the frustration in switching to SuSe Linux is related to the inevitable learning curve in understanding the differences between the way the two OS's approach things.

But, that also makes my point. The home workstation market is made up of millions just like me.

* We are used to being able to simply plug things in and they either work or they prompt you for a CD to get them to work.

* We are used to installing programs that end up as icons on our task bar or desktop where we can easily find them.

* We are used to being able to pop a DVD in and everything just works, the video, the sound, everything. There is no way my 70 year old mother is going to chase down rpm's to install from packman's site to get DVD's to work.

Now, Apple has figured it out with their OS X. I just bought an eMachine for my son at college and I am very impressed with what Apple has done. It's not windows, it doesn't have to be, but there were no major jarring surprises in using the machine. When he installed programs, he got icons in logical places. DVD's played. CD's played. Everything worked.

That's exactly where the various Linux distros need to get to when you talk about the home user workstation market. Until Linux distros do that, they will not penetrate to any large degree and that's the point of the author's article.

Scott

To Scott, et al: Now, I am as green as the next computer user and have a dual boot machine with Windows 98SE on one harddrive and SuSe Linux 9.0 on the other. I stopped upgrading Windows because, first; I had reached a stable version and two; I had found good third party virus and worm protection, neither one of which came from windbag Gates! I also do NOT get hacked like those using XP either! I have, I admit, had a rocky time with Linux, but, for some reason, being stubborn I guess, I was able to figure out the majority of my problems, except for a printing problem I had. That was solved by the present version of SuSe Linux 9.0 although they now have a 9.1 out, also. I do belong to a sig that concentrates on Linux, any version, but because of all the new first timers, there are certain details we have as yet not gone over. However, I am shifting over to Linux, for instance I now do my word processing and internet through Mozilla for Linux. The Word Processor is Open Office, but I may get the new Linux WordPerfect. There is a desktop publishing program for Linux called Scribus, and at least 2 different finance programs for personal finance. Or you could use the spreadsheet in Open Office for a finance program. As far as Windows is concerned, its days are numbered on my computer and I am sure on many, many others!! There is absolutely no reason to buy a Windows based machine, as Linux can even run Windows programs and , in a network, Linux is a more stable server!!! :-)

On Sunday 13 June 2004 6:47 am, jfweber@bellsouth.net wrote:

*** Reply to message from Scott Leighton on Sat, 12 Jun 2004 13:41:26 -0700***

...

Now, Apple has figured it out with their OS X. I just bought an eMachine for my son at college and I am very impressed with what Apple has done.

whoa! OSX on an emachine???? Job's have a change of heart , or ?????

Sorry, that's a typo, it should have read eMac not eMachine. It's a nice little box, perfect for my college student son. Frankly, he's the reason I finally switched to SuSE. I got jealous after I saw all the neat stuff on his eMac when I opened a terminal window. All my favorite stuff was there, perl, python, apache, etc. Scott -- POPFile, the OpenSource EMail Classifier http://popfile.sourceforge.net/ Linux 2.6.4-54.5-default

*** Reply to message from Scott Leighton on Sat, 12 Jun 2004 13:41:26 -0700***

Now, Apple has figured it out with their OS X. I just bought an eMachine for my son at college and I am very impressed with what Apple has done.

whoa! OSX on an emachine???? Job's have a change of heart , or ????? -- j -- nemo me impune lacessit it's just an afterthought; okay ? : Politically incorrect and darned proud of it!

Sorry, but the typical home workstation user will without a doubt find it much much easier to use XP versus any Linux distro.

And you have done research on this? I am part of a project that installs K12 networks at local schools. For many of the students this is the first time that they get to use a computer. As soon as we get the terminals booted from the server, they start to use it. We only need to show one or two how to log in, and it will spread like a fire. Within a few minutes, all working terminals are swamped with kids and they quickly start to use the tools. They do not find it difficult to use the system at all. So, why do they find it easy to use? They have not used anything else before, so they are not trying to use the system as a Windows box. They do not look for a 'Start' button. -- Andre Truter | Software Engineer | Registered Linux user #185282 ICQ #40935899 | AIM: trusoftzaf | http://www.trusoft.co.za ~ "Oh Bother!" said the Borg, "We assimilated the Pooh!" ~

Pieter Hulshoff wrote on 12 June 2004 21:28

To: suse-linux-e@suse.com Subject: Re: [SLE] Not So Fast: Linux on the Desktop

On Saturday 12 June 2004 21:44, Scott Leighton wrote:

...

On Saturday 12 June 2004 12:13 pm, John Andersen wrote:

...

And XP is? You mean the same XP that will be infected within 15 minutes of putting it on the net right out of the box? And that has exactly what to do with anything?

I'm sorry, but I have to agree with John here. I got a Dell Windows XP machine (no, it was for someone else), installed by Dell and ready to use. I hooked it up to the internet; 5 minutes later it started rebooting. If it wasn't for the fact that I knew what to be looking for (the infamous virus of course;) I'd have been in deep s**t. It took me about 3 hours to get everything in working order again. Now imagine being an unexperienced user, and you've bought that Dell computer. How would you feel about your 'user experience' with MS Windows XP?

Well, given what you know about XP you could have planned for it and downloaded the patches before connecting it to the internet - I would have, and installed an antivirus product and a firewall. Did you bother to activate the (admittedly limited) inbuilt firewall? Damon

On Saturday 12 June 2004 16:00, Damon Jebb wrote:

Well, given what you know about XP you could have planned for it and downloaded the patches before connecting it to the internet - I would have, and installed an antivirus product and a firewall.  Did you bother to activate the (admittedly limited) inbuilt firewall?

Damon

Yes, yes, I'm sure Pieter is well aware of his blunder, but you miss his point entirely. How is Ma and Pa Polyester spozed to know that AFTER buying the new computer and the cable modem that its UNSAFE to use them untill they go out and drop another $30-$70 bucks on a router? Where is the user-friendlyness and end user satisfaction in this scenario. (Of course, I won't mention the fact that even with Windows 98-XP installed you STILL are not thru buying stuff just to finish your next great novel or balance your checkbook. - No, you have another couple hundered bucks of software to buy). Ooops, I guess I did mention it. -- _____________________________________ John Andersen

Pieter Hulshoff wrote on 13 June 2004 09:16

I guess it was the victory of hope over experience. I hadn't expected Dell to deliver a computer where the service packs weren't installed yet. It will not happen again. :)

John does make my point though: how's the average user going to know things like this? Assuming you buy a fully installed Linux machine from a vendor, I wonder if the user experience will be worse than the one with Windows XP. I wouldn't trust my dad to install Windows XP either...

The idea is this: if you have a fully installed machine (installed by an experienced person that is), would the user experience for Windows XP be so much better than that of SuSE 9.1? My dad doesn't know where to get divx anymore than he knows where to find Packman, so setting that aside, and starting from a properly installed machine: which user experience would be better, and by how much?

I would accept that installers supplying a new machine with XP on should patch it. I have supplied several new machines to a local school recently and I configured and installed them here, behind a firewall and patched them before delivery. But these high end HP machines did already have SP1 installed. I tend to feel that this is something of a separate argument from whether or not the fundamentals of the design and intent of the operating system is better suited to the unskilled home user. It is my belief, and nothing that has been written here has changed it, that Linux will not suit the unskilled user. The vast majority of the strongest Linux advocates on this list are themselves highly skilled users, so perhaps not best placed to judge. Arguments about 'my 6-year-old has no trouble' come down to the same thing - of course they don't they have a highly skilled and experienced tutor to train them in it's use and maintain and assist in the vagaries of installing a new piece of software. I wonder how many 6 year olds could install, unaided and for the first time, a piece of software on Linux and how many of the same group could do so on windows XP? I would maintain that far more would manage to find the right combination of 'Next' buttons and install a default configuration on XP than could do so on Linux. Installation of new software is to my mind one of the reasons why Linux is not well suited to unskilled users. Until the linux installation processes are as slick and reliable as they currently are in windows XP (98 and others are admittedly less reliable) they will not be able to compete. Too much specific knowledge and skill is required simply to install your application. The average user to whom a computer is a tool neither needs nor wants this knowledge after installation. Damon

jfweber@bellsouth.net wrote on 13 June 2004 12:32

well, comparing apples and apples, as it were, your 6 year old w/ linux would likely be attempting to install and rpm file, and if they have seen windows work they very likely would do something like, "click on the file " they want to install, at that point , up pops a window which says , would you like to install this w/ yast2( ?) not certain is says yast2 it may just say yast... average 6 year old would likely say ( click) "yes" and the thing would be installed, unless there were depency issues, in which case small child would yell for local parental unit, w/o a doubt!

The problem with Linux is dependencies. So the need to 'yell for help' is exactly my point. Yes, YaST can work, but more often than not I have found it necessary to work out exactly which package is missing, identify whether it's available from the SuSE disc or not and then install that package. This is not helpful, nor intuitive. Given that most XP software is designed for a standard XP machine this is not likely to happen on XP and in general dependencies are installed as part of the process where there are any.

Now if you have a really smart kid who has watched you do it, and remembers what to type, complete w/ --force at the end, you might wind up w/ something that doesn't work. OTH, if they install a windows ( any version) program that needs other "libraries" or programs to work, you get a system w/ a program that wont run and very likely a kid who is kicking the bed for you to get up and fix it... 6 year olds can be extremely persistant.

I have rarely come across this case with commercial software under XP. The issue of quality and redistributable libraries with 'non-commercial' software is off course a completely different subject.

...

Installation of new software is to my mind one of the reasons why Linux is not well suited to unskilled users

not sure this is true, compilation of programs is likely beyond the levels of most newbies... but that isn't such a bad thing. Also, as a good parent, who would prefer not to have all your computer time together consisting of "okay honey, then what did you install" probably wont put the files needed to do compilations on said kid's computer... at least not until the little dear understands that it really IS better to wait til parental unit has been infused w/ an adequate amount of caffeine to do more than make strangling gargling sort of waking up sounds. ;)

This seems more flippant than anything - yes the demands of youngsters wanting to learn about *your* computer are frustrating, whatever the OS. The point I was making is that when a new, .egitimately required piece of software is required to be installed on a system I believe that XP makes the process generally easier and more reliable. I then pointed out that the many people who respond on this list by saying 'well my 6 year old has no problem' are not recognising the influence that they have on the outcome of such activity by a 6-year-old.

...

Until the linux installation processes are as slick and reliable as they currently are in windows XP

So, why did the kids at my daughters house throw out XP in favour of an Xbox, for the boy to play games on and a ps2 for the girl???? The only reason they had any windows stuff was for games, a bit of investigation showed they were playing Dos games... so XP was overkill, and after the worm right before the last worm it was gone.. Slick?? So what, wormy.. bad idea, at least we have a builtin firewall that in the home versions closes damned near everything, if not everything...

So XP was not necessarily less easy to use, it just didn't meet the needs of the users. Arguably games consoles are better, especially for unskilled users, than any form of OS based computer workstation. This is not like for like. The XP worms are a problem. I strongly believe that were the resources of the world balanced the other way round then the Linux community would be facing something very similar. There are always going to be security holes, the XP model does make things more difficult, but it is not impossible to be secure. Mostly this is common sense and awareness. The thing about linux users is that they tend to more sensible about their computing, more aware of the issues with security and more willing to take action to secure their systems. If there were as many computer 'iliterates' using linux as currently use windows we would have as many worms doing bad things with our systems. This is because there would be far more of those idiotic, but not stupid, virus writers looking for ways to make a splash in the world news with their latest moronic creation.

No it isn't that we don't understand what windows does well. We do, but we also understand that what it does badly, will ruin your computing day, week-end, posibley the next week or so before you get back to where you were when it hit the fan... And, it seems extremely difficult to get windows users to understand "backups". Doesn't have to be complex, but, for instance, if you make your living as a writer; back up what you write, to media NOT built into your computer, and do it daily...

...

The average user to whom a computer is a tool neither needs nor wants this knowledge after installation.

unfortunatly this is true, but at least some are begining to understand... However, somethings are assimilated by osmosis... so the next generation gets more critical...

The one real problem I see w/ linux is the lack of documentation that is clear and easy to understand on one reading. WE can go into the details of what this program will do once it's installed.

But, currently, if you self compile something that is kde, or gnome, it gets put into user local.. except, of course, all it's libraries are looked for in ( for Suse anyway) /opt kde(x) or /opt/gnome... but even moving it there doesn't always help.. Probably one of the biggest pushes behind teh rpm( type) movement for installing stuff.. at least yast puts it where it will work... usually. ( and yeah, if you don't move it to /opt/whichever, you still have to run SuSEconfig... )

This is the problem with Linux, you have to have an understanding of the system, worse your specific choice of linux flavour before you can begin to successfully install a large number packages. The biggest problem for me with linux is the way in which RH, Mandrake, SuSE and Debian all differ, not what is common to them. There have been other discussions about this, but the acceptability of Linux is being compromised by the framentation that these differences demonstrate. Damon

On Sunday 13 June 2004 16:35, Mike McMullin wrote:

Errr, uhmmm, that's doesn't hold for Debian based systems. Apt handles the dependencies.

Most of the times but not always. Especially if you try to install new apps on older debian systems, like woody (stable) for example, you can run into a lot of problems. -- Kind regards Hans du Plooy Newington Consulting Services hansdp at newingtoncs dot co dot za

On Sunday 13 June 2004 16:35, Mike McMullin wrote:

On Sun, 2004-06-13 at 08:33, Damon Jebb wrote:

...

jfweber@bellsouth.net wrote on 13 June 2004 12:32

Errr, uhmmm, that's doesn't hold for Debian based systems. Apt handles the dependencies.

The dependency hell problem exists in RPM based systems.

Wrong. It does not exist in RPM-based systems with apt for rpm. ;P Cheers, Leen

Op zondag 13 juni 2004 22:18, schreef Mike McMullin:

  <TTthhhhwwwwaappp>  Getting Apt4rpm requires some effort, works like nobody's business, and it's going to be put on all my SuSE systems, but it's not like I can just drop to a command line and su to root and then "apt-get install apt4rpm", and then to a nice simple "apt-get install synaptic".  <sigh>

Actually you can! There are only 3 rpms to be installed manually, which are lua, apt and apt-libs to get apt going. Once that's is done installing apt4rpm can indeed be done using 'apt install apt4rpm'. The latter is actually the preferred way to install apt4rpm as there are quite some required rpms to be installed for apt4rpm. The same is valid for synaptic. Do not forget the apt4rpm rpm is _only_ needed to create an apt repository. You most likely don't need it, as stated on http://linux01.gwdg.de/apt4rpm -- Richard Bos Without a home the journey is endless

On Sun, 2004-06-13 at 16:36, Richard Bos wrote:

Op zondag 13 juni 2004 22:30, schreef Richard Bos:

...

Op zondag 13 juni 2004 22:18, schreef Mike McMullin:

...

<TTthhhhwwwwaappp> Getting Apt4rpm requires some effort, works like nobody's business, and it's going to be put on all my SuSE systems, but it's not like I can just drop to a command line and su to root and then "apt-get install apt4rpm", and then to a nice simple "apt-get install synaptic". <sigh>

Actually you can!

As I have responded to this thread now. I have a simple MS outlook problem. If I sent an email from linux with an attachment to an MS outlook user, she can't get access to the attachment at all (nothing nada niente). MS tells her it is not secure... Fine, that's fair. What is not so fair is that I have gone through the whole outlook settings (tools/options) dialog, but I can not find the configure option to alter this setting. I believe it is a security setting related to internet or something like that. Why the hack is it impossible to access the attachment as I (we) know the attachment is super secure????

Sorry Richard, I can't be as helpful to you as you have been to me. In Windows I use Forte Agent for e-mail. Mike

On Sunday June 13 2004 10:06 pm, Doug McGarrett wrote:

You should get Eudora--either the freebie off the net, or the $29.95 one from the store.  Much less chance of viruses, etc., and it doesn't give you problems like you seem to have.  BTW:  the freebie can either be configured to give you a lot of control but with ads, or less control without ads.  The one you buy gives you lots of control without ads. Maybe the price went up, I don't know.  I use what is probably an older version when I use Win, but I like it.  I am getting used to KMail, here.

Eudora and Agent are both great products, but neither have been ported to Linux. And, until the the authors get their heads outta the buckets and port to Linux, I'll use KMail. Fred -- Ronald Reagan 1911 - 2004 An American Patriot who hated Communism and Socialism, never brought shame upon himself, his family, his political offices or abused the trust of the American People. We love you and we wonder when another like you or Theodore Roosevelt will arise again.

Eudora and Agent are both great products, but neither have been ported to

...

Linux. And, until the the authors get their heads outta the buckets and port to Linux, I'll use KMail.

Fred

...And kmail beats the hell outta Outlook or Outlook Express. I wish I'd had the filtering latitude I now have using kmail! Kmail rocks!

Have you guys tried Thunderbird? I'm using it and like it lots. I like kmail too, but I wish I could configure it to look and feel the way I like. I'd like to have different themes for it and such. Maybe change what certain keys do. Not that this is any big deal, but I can only seem to open a new email by double-clicking on it. I'd rather just hit enter. Again, just a personal thing.

Fred Miller wrote:

On Sunday June 13 2004 11:21 pm, Brooks wrote:

...

Have you guys tried Thunderbird? I'm using it and like it lots. I like kmail too, but I wish I could configure it to look and feel the way I like. I'd like to have different themes for it and such. Maybe change what certain keys do. Not that this is any big deal, but I can only seem to open a new email by double-clicking on it. I'd rather just hit enter. Again, just a personal thing.

I messed with Thunderbird for about a week, and it's just not as solid as KMail, and I like KMail's filtering.....maybe because I'm so used to it.

I admit to liking KMail alot and I used it for the last ~3 years. But I recently switched to Thunderbird for two reasons: 1) I can search the bodies of messages - never could figure how to do that in KMail, and 2) Thunderbird's built-in spam tool works exceptionally well. Steve

On Monday 14 June 2004 00:01, Steve wrote:

Fred Miller wrote:

...

On Sunday June 13 2004 11:21 pm, Brooks wrote:

...

Have you guys tried Thunderbird? I'm using it and like it lots. I like kmail too, but I wish I could configure it to look and feel the way I like. I'd like to have different themes for it and such. Maybe change what certain keys do. Not that this is any big deal, but I can only seem to open a new email by double-clicking on it. I'd rather just hit enter. Again, just a personal thing.

I messed with Thunderbird for about a week, and it's just not as solid as KMail, and I like KMail's filtering.....maybe because I'm so used to it.

I admit to liking KMail alot and I used it for the last ~3 years. But I recently switched to Thunderbird for two reasons: 1) I can search the bodies of messages - never could figure how to do that in KMail, and 2) Thunderbird's built-in spam tool works exceptionally well.

Steve Well... (1)the CTRL-F key brings up a dialog box & searches the currently highlighted msg w/the filter you provide; (2)my ISP has done an exceptional job of throwing out not only the SPAM but also eradicating any worms/viruses before they get to their subscribers (not many of whom use Linux). -- ...CH SuSE 9 Works Linux user# 313696 Linux box# 199365

C Hamel wrote:

On Sunday 13 June 2004 22:52, Fred Miller wrote: <SNIP>

...

...

Have you guys tried Thunderbird? I'm using it and like it lots. I like kmail too, but I wish I could configure it to look and feel the way I like. I'd like to have different themes for it and such. Maybe change what certain keys do. Not that this is any big deal, but I can only seem to open a new email by double-clicking on it. I'd rather just hit enter. Again, just a personal thing.

I messed with Thunderbird for about a week, and it's just not as solid as KMail, and I like KMail's filtering.....maybe because I'm so used to it.

Fred

-- Ronald Reagan 1911 - 2004 An American Patriot who hated Communism and Socialism, never brought shame upon himself, his family, his political offices or abused the trust of the American People. We love you and we wonder when another like you or Theodore Roosevelt will arise again.

I, too, have tried Thunderbird. I'd still rather use kmail --perhaps for the same reason as Fred.

I haven't looked too hard at kmail for filtering, but a friend uses it and says the filtering is excellent, he's also been able to doctor spam to flood the sender's mailbox. I stuck with thunderbird as filtering didn't need much setting up, first up it marks all mail as spam, then you tell it which is not spam and you are off and running, progressively by marking spam, it drops to a tricke per day in Inbox. Regards Sid. -- Sid Boyce .... Hamradio G3VBV and keen Flyer ===== LINUX ONLY USED HERE =====

Gerhard den Hollander wrote:

* Sid Boyce (Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 02:12:29PM +0100)

...

I haven't looked too hard at kmail for filtering, but a friend uses it and says the filtering is excellent, he's also been able to doctor spam to flood the sender's mailbox.

<rant on> Given that more and more spam fakes the From: adress, will you please take your friend out to an undisclosed location and shoot him ?

It's bad enough to see spam with my adress as the From: field, it's even worse to have clueless twerps multiplying the problem by thinking they are so clever ... it's almost as bad as the fucking clueless anti-virus vendors who by default set their tools to autoreply to every fsck-ing virus they get even though 99.99999% of the viruses found in the wild these days fake the From: address ...

<rant off>

(yes, Im not having a good day) Currently listening to: PJ1996-11-06D2t08

Gerhard, (faliquid@xs4all.nl) == The Acoustic Motorbiker ==

He only spams the spammers, sends them back the trash they send him, he hates the vermin as much as we all do, gives them a taste of what they are doing. There was an interesting story on slashdot some months ago, there was one spammer who had just moved into a $700,000.00 house he bought with the proceeds, they signed him up for all the stuff they could, that kept USPS busy delivering van loads of brochures etc. to his house, he screamed harassment and threatened to sue, just deserts I'd say. It'd be a nice day when our Inboxes weren't polluted by spam. Regards Sid. -- Sid Boyce .... Hamradio G3VBV and keen Flyer ===== LINUX ONLY USED HERE =====

John Pettigrew wrote:

In a previous message, Sid Boyce wrote:

...

He only spams the spammers, sends them back the trash they send him

You're missing the point that many of these messages have forged or fake From addresses, so doing as he is will only use up bandwidth at best (while verifying his own email address as valid to the spammers!) and harass innocents at worst.

John

I shall have to check again as he was sure he is getting back to the spammers by following the trail their spam takes. Regards Sid. -- Sid Boyce .... Hamradio G3VBV and keen Flyer ===== LINUX ONLY USED HERE =====

On Monday June 14 2004 11:29 am, Patrick Shanahan wrote:

Please.  Tell me how to spam a spammer who is relaying his trash thru unknowing open relays, primarily losers.  If you do not know how, please ask your friend who does this to tell us how.  We will shut *all* the spammers down and have no more problems with them.

I anxiously await your reply,

For once, ME TOO!!! Fred -- Ronald Reagan 1911 - 2004 An American Patriot who hated Communism and Socialism, never brought shame upon himself, his family, his political offices or abused the trust of the American People. We love you and we wonder when another like you or Theodore Roosevelt will arise again.

* Sid Boyce [06-14-04 16:05]:

Patrick Shanahan wrote:

...

Please. Tell me how to spam a spammer who is relaying his trash thru unknowing open relays, primarily losers. If you do not know how, please ask your friend who does this to tell us how. We will shut *all* the spammers down and have no more problems with them.

I anxiously await your reply,

I know there are ways, that's how the slashdotters got together, spammed and snail mail bombed the spammer with the $700,000.00 new house built on proceeds. I couldn't find the original with details of how he was traced back, but see (Spam Justice) below. On google, a few interesting stories on how spammers were dealt with and also some tracing info in spam-faq.html. Not ideal I admit, that needs a law.

Ah, you have responded to the post but not the content of the post. The question still remains unanswered. [Hint]... -- Patrick Shanahan Registered Linux User #207535 http://wahoo.no-ip.org @ http://counter.li.org HOG # US1244711 Photo Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/photos

* Sid Boyce [06-15-04 17:17]:

Patrick Shanahan wrote:

...

* Sid Boyce [06-14-04 16:05]:

...

Patrick Shanahan wrote:

...

Please. Tell me how to spam a spammer who is relaying his trash thru unknowing open relays, primarily losers. If you do not know how, please ask your friend who does this to tell us how. We will shut *all* the spammers down and have no more problems with them.

I anxiously await your reply,

I know there are ways, that's how the slashdotters got together, spammed and snail mail bombed the spammer with the $700,000.00 new house built on proceeds. I couldn't find the original with details of how he was traced back, but see (Spam Justice) below. On google, a few interesting stories on how spammers were dealt with and also some tracing info in spam-faq.html. Not ideal I admit, that needs a law.

Ah, you have responded to the post but not the content of the post. The question still remains unanswered. [Hint]...

I attached the URL for spam.faq which had showed some methods of tracing, but I haven't had time to read it through.

Sid, I have the ability and facilities to trace-back spam, until I find an open relay. You stated that your friend can go to the source. I still would like to know how. Please ask your friend to enlighten us. Or, tell us that this is not possible. -- Patrick Shanahan Registered Linux User #207535 http://wahoo.no-ip.org @ http://counter.li.org HOG # US1244711 Photo Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/photos

* Anders Johansson (Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 12:31:39AM +0200)

Another problem is that a lot of spam these days originate from viruses and trojans, so even if you manage to trace the spam to the sender, you still haven't found the real culprit.

Which was sortof the point we have been trying to make all these emails .. You cannot trace them , so having an auto-responder flame the presumed sender is rather stupid (to put it very politely) Currently listening to: 03 When You're Ready Gerhard, == The Acoustic Motorbiker == -- __O All things (e.g. a camel's journey through =`\<, A needle's eye) are possible, it's true. (=)/(=) But picture how the camel feels, squeezed out In one long bloody thread, from tail to snout.

On Monday 14 June 2004 10:10, Sid Boyce wrote: <SNIP>

He only spams the spammers, sends them back the trash they send him, he hates the vermin as much as we all do, gives them a taste of what they are doing. There was an interesting story on slashdot some months ago, there was one spammer who had just moved into a $700,000.00 house he bought with the proceeds, they signed him up for all the stuff they could, that kept USPS busy delivering van loads of brochures etc. to his house, he screamed harassment and threatened to sue, just deserts I'd say. It'd be a nice day when our Inboxes weren't polluted by spam. Regards Sid.

-- Sid Boyce .... Hamradio G3VBV and keen Flyer ===== LINUX ONLY USED HERE ===== Not sure if this is actually working... but I have set up several filters to bounce at least some of the SPAM I have received. In some cases the address isn't valid, of course, so I do it by subject in that case. I get lovely visions of SPAM bouncing from server to server ...permanently w/o a home. Not an ideal solution, granted; ...but it does keep it out of my inbox. -- ...CH SuSE 9 Works Linux user# 313696 Linux box# 199365

Jeffrey L. Taylor wrote:

Quoting C Hamel :

...

Not sure if this is actually working... but I have set up several filters to bounce at least some of the SPAM I have received. In some cases the address isn't valid, of course, so I do it by subject in that case. I get lovely visions of SPAM bouncing from server to server ...permanently w/o a home. Not an ideal solution, granted; ...but it does keep it out of my inbox.

Devoting more of the Internet's limited bandwidth to spam. It's not a Good Thing.

Just my $0.02USD, Jeffrey

Agreed, it should be outlawed, the spammers are set on a course to grind bandwidth to a halt, far sooner and inevitably than a few people taking countermeasures. Making spam illegal is the only answer, though some powerful companies, probably with justifiable concern, have been advising caution. Regards Sid. -- Sid Boyce .... Hamradio G3VBV and keen Flyer ===== LINUX ONLY USED HERE =====

Gerhard den Hollander wrote:

Sid:

...

...

He only spams the spammers, sends them back the trash they send him, he

And prey tell, how does he determine which adress is a faked from: and which is the real one ?

Please get a clue.

He is not trusting the from: address as he knows addresses most certainly are fake. As I said I shall have to ask again, it was described in detail, but I paid little attention as I was not interested enough to take details and then work through it. There are ways to get back to a spammer's box, articles have been written with full details of all the convoluted links, but theyhave been traced back. It's not impossible for someone who knows what he is doing. Regards Sid. -- Sid Boyce .... Hamradio G3VBV and keen Flyer ===== LINUX ONLY USED HERE =====

Sid Boyce wrote: [snip]

He is not trusting the from: address as he knows addresses most certainly are fake. As I said I shall have to ask again, it was described in detail, but I paid little attention as I was not interested enough to take details and then work through it. There are ways to get back to a spammer's box, articles have been written with full details of all the convoluted links, but theyhave been traced back. It's not impossible for someone who knows what he is doing. Regards Sid.

Alas, well-crafted spam is untraceable back to the originator these days. Unless the spammer is acting unprofessionally, the best you'll get is an open relay, zombie or bent isp, in my experience anyway. But then there is no need at all to trace the stuff back. The world's most prolific spammers are very public about it and don't care who knows. Just take a look through the top couple of hundred on the lists at Spamhaus, where you'll also see that the problem is mostly sourced from America. These are your targets. Of course, you'll have to be prepared to take on their friends and associates - corrupt politicians, mafiosi, etc. Nicest guys you could meet, I'm sure. The people who should really be spammed are the politicians who've known all about these guys and the extremely unpleasant realities behind them for a very long time now. In the meantime, I'm sticking to spamassassin. :) Fish

On Monday 14 June 2004 16:31, Sid Boyce wrote:

I wonder what ever happened to "spamhole", I supposed it never caught on, the idea was to use that piece of software to fake an open relay and have all the spam dumped to /dev/null. The suggestion was that with widespread use, it could blunt the spammers. The latest was Dec. 2003 http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/spamhole/spamhole-0.5.tar.gz?downl oad, I must see what that offers.

Problem is, while it sounds like a good idea, it's more of a feel-good measure than anything else. The spammers don't care whether or not you /dev/null everything they send you. If it doesn't bounce, they get paid. -- Homepage http://scott.exti.net XFce desktop environment http://www.xfce.org Goodies for the XFce desktop http://xfce-goodies.berlios.de GPG public key ID: 811B00AB

*** I will go down w/ this ship and I wont put my hands up and surrender.There will be no white flag above my door***

I wonder what ever happened to "spamhole", I supposed it never caught on, the idea was to use that piece of software to fake an open relay and have all the spam dumped to /dev/null. The suggestion was that with widespread use, it could blunt the spammers.

variation on a tarpit I guess... Let us know what you discover ;) -- j -- nemo me impune lacessit it's just an afterthought; okay ? : To boldly code what no one has coded before!

On Tuesday 15 June 2004 02:08, Patrick Shanahan wrote:

* jfweber@bellsouth.net [06-14-04 17:55]:

...

variation on a tarpit I guess... Let us know what you discover ;)

I believe the term is either tarbaby (Unkle Remus) or honeypot.

The various clever systems for bogging down spammers' SMTP are called tarpits, I understand, the idea being that they wallow in them and finally drown like the woolly mammoths of yore. There's some quite interesting discussion of this periodically on the OpenBSD lists. But that's as much as I know.

-- Patrick Shanahan Registered Linux User #207535 http://wahoo.no-ip.org @ http://counter.li.org HOG # US1244711 Photo Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/photos

-- Fergus Wilde Chetham's Library Long Millgate Manchester M3 1SB Tel: +44 161 834 7961 Fax: +44 161 839 5797 http://www.chethams.org.uk

When we're on the discussion on SPAM, I have to admit that I'm a big sceptic. I can understand an advertising company willing to pay someone a cent an address that he sends an advertisement to, but in no way would

benefit that company to have this person harrass their upcoming customers. It's like with pr0n, they don't benefit from ruining your computer ...

Örn Hansen wrote on 06/15/2004 06:45:10 AM: [snip previous] that that

does not make buisness for them.

Whome do I see benefiting? I see people, who want to be able to legislate the internet so that they have the ability to monitor whatever traffic

If they didn't perceive it as beneficial, they wouldn't be doing it. Nearly every customer of any size (and some small ones) I have wants to stop all their spam, but they ALL want to be able to do "email marketing". What's the difference? Everything that anyone else sends them they don't like is spam. Their own stuff is "Marketing". It's easy to rationalize this. We sell commercial-level spam filters, and I can go into the queues, and do searches for a couple of email marketing firms I know, and their name shows up all over the place, sending email on the behalf of other customers. Going to send them mail? These people can literally send millions of mail messages an hour, and you think that some traffic you might send them is going to bother them? there

is on it, without any respect to individual privacy. And they are the only ones who benefit from this activity ... no one else benfits. And I mean no one else.

Those are my prime suspect, as they're religious fanatics who believe

the end justifies the means, and thus "any" means are ustifyable. And

probably why we haven't seen any stop for the spam yet. We won't, until

Don't mean to be rude, but you're being more than a little paranoid here. The people who send the spam benefit because they make money. The people who pay them believe they're doing what they have always done - marketing. The US passed crappy laws because they're ignorant and because they were lobbied heavily by industry. Only way that will change is if many many people call their own representatives and tell them they're not going to vote for them anymore, but it isn't the biggest issue for people. that that's the

legislation has completely removed all our rights on the internet.

"Religious fanatics" and "end justifies the means" - sounds like marketing people to me. This has little to do with government. It has more to do with "marketing" as I've stated. People who do it make very good money at it. No one likes telemarketers, but that certainly hasn't stopped them in the last 15 years, has it? What is it that there's always some vast conspiracy involved? There's none needed.

Mvh, Örn

PS. I agree with Benjamin Franklin, or wasn't he who said that anyone

who

sacrifices his freedom for security deserves neither.

Jon Johnston Creative Business Solutions IBM, Microsoft, Novell Consultants http://www.cbsol.com 952-544-1108 Blog: http://bingo.cbsol.com

On Tuesday 15 June 2004 04:37, jonlists wrote:

"Religious fanatics" and "end justifies the means" - sounds like marketing people to me. This has little to do with government. It has more to do with "marketing" as I've stated.

People who do it make very good money at it. No one likes telemarketers, but that certainly hasn't stopped them in the last 15 years, has it?

What is it that there's always some vast conspiracy involved? There's none needed.

Yes I agree with John here, In fact this could probably be called Johnston's alegory to Hanlon's Razor: "Never attribute to conspiracy that which can adequatly be explained by greed." I think if you follow the money far enough you will find that the makers of all these prescription drugs have back-channels thru which the drugs flow freely to spammers. There is no mystery about who is doing the spaming. There are about 200 people responsible for 90% of all spam. 200 people destroying the net for everyone on planet earth: http://www.spamhaus.org/rokso/index.lasso -- _____________________________________ John Andersen

måndag 14 juni 2004 22:22 skrev Mark Crean:

The people who should really be spammed are the politicians who've known all about these guys and the extremely unpleasant realities behind them for a very long time now.

In the meantime, I'm sticking to spamassassin.

Sooner or later, you'll end up in the same situation I'm in ... my next uplink, which is a Cisco router is acting like a hub spouting hundreds to thousands of ARP's every minute ... so many in fact, that my own broadband router gets blocked every now and then, totally halting my bandwidth. Not to mention the fact, that my next door neighbour can listen to my telephone conversations, as I'm using VoIP. Sooner or later, something is going to have to be done ... and sooner, is better as later will just make things more complicated.

:)

Fish

My €0.01 worth.

tisdag 15 juni 2004 00:54 skrev Sid Boyce:

The politicians will only brag that they are doing good work in view of all the email they get. This sounds insecure, your next door neighbour seems to have all ports open and I thought VOIP was only deliverable to a specific IP address, but I suppose it must be vulnerable to man-in-the-middle interception if it's not tunnelled, gosh, another security hole. My only experience of VOIP has largely been on hamradio and I've never been able to hear anyone else's point-to-point, though I always thought the server would be capable of intercepting traffic. I once tried SIP landline to landline, but I couldn't hear the other send as my inbound port seemed set incorrectly.

VoIP is just that, IP ... there are a few ports involved, some compression and possibly some encryption although I doubt it, as its supposed to be peer-to-peer. When my uplink, which is a Cisco router/switch, functions as a hub it means that everyone connected to that device (my next door neighbour), will get ALL packets sent too and from my host, and I theirs. Very nice to know, isn't it...

Regards Sid.

-- Sid Boyce .... Hamradio G3VBV and keen Flyer ===== LINUX ONLY USED HERE =====

tisdag 15 juni 2004 06:48 skrev John Andersen:

Well its still IP, so unless your neighbor is especially Cluefull he's not going to be able to figure out what that packet storm is all about anyway.

Can one VoIP over SSH? -- Not on my end, I'm stuck with a VoIP modem (Israeli made) which is pretty neat. The uplink itself is not very wide 128Kbps so I don't think there's any encryption involved, especially since it uses less than half the uplink bandwidth during calls. If there were two computers involved, tunneling

With all the tools available, noone needs to understand the inner of the IP protocol, or the complexity involved in compression. through SSH would be a certainty.

_____________________________________ John Andersen

On Monday 14 June 2004 12:22, C Hamel wrote: <snip>

Not sure if this is actually working... but I have set up several filters to bounce at least some of the SPAM I have received. In some cases the address isn't valid, of course, so I do it by subject in that case. I get lovely visions of SPAM bouncing from server to server ...permanently w/o a home. Not an ideal solution, granted; ...but it does keep it out of my inbox. --

Are you using your ISP's mailserver, or do you run your own? I only ask because I really don't want to drop traffic from Smartcom's MX unless I absolutely have to. -- Homepage http://scott.exti.net XFce desktop environment http://www.xfce.org Goodies for the XFce desktop http://xfce-goodies.berlios.de GPG public key ID: 811B00AB

måndag 14 juni 2004 16:16 skrev Gerhard den Hollander:

It's bad enough to see spam with my adress as the From: field, it's even worse to have clueless twerps multiplying the problem by thinking they are so clever ... it's almost as bad as the fucking clueless anti-virus vendors who by default set their tools to autoreply to every fsck-ing virus they get even though 99.99999% of the viruses found in the wild these days fake the From: address ...

<rant off>

Man, tell me about it... I've gotten replys from som .ru address, because someobdy with outlook has my email address in his or her address book, and suddenly I get replies where my address was in the From address ... grrrrr.

Op maandag 14 juni 2004 05:21, schreef Brooks:

...

...And kmail beats the hell outta Outlook or Outlook Express.  I wish I'd had the filtering latitude I now have using kmail!  Kmail rocks!  

Have you guys tried Thunderbird?  I'm using it and like it lots.  I like kmail too, but I wish I could configure it to look and feel the way I like.  I'd like to have different themes for it and such.  Maybe change what certain keys do.  Not that this is any big deal, but I can only seem to open a new email by double-clicking on it.  I'd rather just hit enter.  Again, just a personal thing.

The thing I wanted to point out, is that something very simple (read an attachment that can be trusted) can not be done in MS Windows XP. -- Richard Bos Without a home the journey is endless

On Sunday June 13 2004 11:02 pm, C Hamel wrote: [snip]

...And kmail beats the hell outta Outlook or Outlook Express.  I wish I'd had the filtering latitude I now have using kmail!  Kmail rocks!

Yes, it does - and keeps getting better! Fred -- Ronald Reagan 1911 - 2004 An American Patriot who hated Communism and Socialism, never brought shame upon himself, his family, his political offices or abused the trust of the American People. We love you and we wonder when another like you or Theodore Roosevelt will arise again.

On Sunday 13 June 2004 21:36, Richard Bos wrote:

As I have responded to this thread now. I have a simple MS outlook problem. If I sent an email from linux with an attachment to an MS outlook user, she can't get access to the attachment at all (nothing nada niente). MS tells her it is not secure... Fine, that's fair. What is not so fair is that I have gone through the whole outlook settings (tools/options) dialog, but I can not find the configure option to alter this setting. I believe it is a security setting related to internet or something like that. Why the hack is it impossible to access the attachment as I (we) know the attachment is super secure????

Just had a read of the Outlook help files and it seems that Outlook defaults to blocking *completely* attachments which it considers to be "level 1". I wonder what file type were you attaching? There doesn't seem to be an easy work-around. A case of M$ protecting their customers from themselves! Sorry not be more help. Jake

On Sunday 13 June 2004 12:14, Leendert Meyer wrote:

...

The dependency hell problem exists in RPM based systems.

Wrong. It does not exist in RPM-based systems with apt for rpm.

Why does SuSE not use this? Bryan ******************************************************** Powered by SuSE Linux 8.2 Professional KDE 3.1.1 KMail 1.5.1 This is a Microsoft-free computer Bryan S. Tyson bryantyson@earthlink.net ********************************************************

On Sunday 13 June 2004 10:35, Mike McMullin wrote:

Apt handles the dependencies. The dependency hell problem exists in RPM based systems.

Why does SuSE and other distros not use apt? Bryan ******************************************************** Powered by SuSE Linux 8.2 Professional KDE 3.1.1 KMail 1.5.1 This is a Microsoft-free computer Bryan S. Tyson bryantyson@earthlink.net ********************************************************

On Sunday June 13 2004 9:35 pm, Anders Johansson wrote: [snip]

So desire a good tool like apt or red carpet, but above all, desire packages that aren't broken.

QUITE right! I once got "bitten" by APT as well, and caused me a fresh install of 8.2. Thanks but no thanks. Fred -- Ronald Reagan 1911 - 2004 An American Patriot who hated Communism and Socialism, never brought shame upon himself, his family, his political offices or abused the trust of the American People. We love you and we wonder when another like you or Theodore Roosevelt will arise again.

On Monday June 14 2004 6:19 am, Mike McMullin wrote: [snip]

Fred could you not have uninstalled those packages and then re-installed them? I did a Red-Carpet update of Evolution and then had to go back so I could get Galeon to work. The Apt install of Evolution did actually update Galeon, and I've since updated all of the Ximian packages.

Nope.......tried it. I had more dependancy problems than I could shake a stick at!!! Like SCREEN fulls!! I think it all started with APT getting the wrong kernel, but I'm not sure. Fred -- Ronald Reagan 1911 - 2004 An American Patriot who hated Communism and Socialism, never brought shame upon himself, his family, his political offices or abused the trust of the American People. We love you and we wonder when another like you or Theodore Roosevelt will arise again.

On Sun, 2004-06-13 at 13:33 +0100, Damon Jebb wrote:

The problem with Linux is dependencies. So the need to 'yell for help' is exactly my point.

Yes, YaST can work, but more often than not I have found it necessary to work out exactly which package is missing, identify whether it's available from the SuSE disc or not and then install that package.

I don't know how you are using YaST, but I have never had to figure out dependencies when using YaST. I found it to be excellent at solving dependencies. The only times that I had to seach for a specific package is when I try to compile an unsupported package and I need to know which package will supply a specific development library, or when I install an unsupported rpm, like a Mandrake or RedHat rpm on SuSE. But then you can expect to have to solve dependencies, as it is not a supported package. On Windows I have similar problems trying to find a required dll if I install an unsupported package. In fact, it will normally just install it and the program will not work, complaining about a dll or ocx. ---- I generally do not believe that a 6-year old (or any inexperienced) user should install software on a computer. A PC is not a toy. One of the reasons why I like Linux, is because I can let a 6-year old play on my computer, because I know he/she cannot do real damage. About comparing Linux ease-of-use to Windows: I think to make a fair comparison, one should compare two products that are aimed at the same market. So, you need to compare Windows XP Home Edition with something like Lindows or Xandros. These products are aimed at the general public. RedHat, Debian, Slackware, SuSE Professional, etc are aimed at people that have a higher technical knowledge of computers and software. -- Andre Truter | Software Engineer | Registered Linux user #185282 ICQ #40935899 | AIM: trusoftzaf | http://www.trusoft.co.za ~ "Oh Bother!" said the Borg, "We assimilated the Pooh!" ~

On Sun, 2004-06-13 at 14:35, Damon Jebb wrote:

Andre Truter wrote 13 June 2004 17:58

...

...

The problem with Linux is dependencies. So the need to 'yell for help' is exactly my point.

Yes, YaST can work, but more often than not I have found it

necessary

...

to work out exactly which package is missing, identify whether it's available from the SuSE disc or not and then install that package.

I don't know how you are using YaST, but I have never had to figure out dependencies when using YaST. I found it to be excellent at solving dependencies.

The only times that I had to seach for a specific package is when I try to compile an unsupported package and I need to know which package will supply a specific development library, or when I install an unsupported rpm, like a Mandrake or RedHat rpm on SuSE. But then you can expect to have to solve dependencies, as it is not a supported package.

On Windows I have similar problems trying to find a required dll if I install an unsupported package. In fact, it will normally just install it and the program will not work, complaining about a dll or ocx.

----

I generally do not believe that a 6-year old (or any inexperienced) user should install software on a computer. A PC is not a toy. One of the reasons why I like Linux, is because I can let a 6-year old play on my computer, because I know he/she cannot do real damage.

I was not advovcating 6 year olds installing. I was pre-empting the often seen advocation of linux from people on this group saying that their 6 year old has no problem with it. I don't believe anymore than you that a 6 year old should be installing software

It's been my experience that it's usually their 12+ year old sibs who are only to happy to do that install that causes the problem. Nice things about Linux, to do an actual proper install requires root access, which they probably don't have the password to. My Mother-in-Law's system has been hit so hard by her grandkids installing their "Hey Grandma look at this neat program" thing, that I've had to reinstall more than once to get it back to usable. This is one nice thing about XP Pro, you need that special access in order to install programs.

...

About comparing Linux ease-of-use to Windows:

I think to make a fair comparison, one should compare two products that are aimed at the same market. So, you need to compare Windows XP Home Edition with something like Lindows or Xandros. These products are aimed at the general public.

RedHat, Debian, Slackware, SuSE Professional, etc are aimed at people that have a higher technical knowledge of computers and software.

The problem here is that while you draw a distinction between Lindows, etc. (and some others have) this is not generally the case. Many fanatics simply say 'Linux is better than windows'. I disagree.

Many non-fanatics say that as well. Especially those of us who have used Windows over the years, since 3.11 for myself. I made the mistake ONCE and only once of letting a neighbour kid do an install of a MicroSoft game (Age of Empires if I recall correctly) on my main system, it went down for a reboot (you can tell it's written by MS when it does that), I had the kid eject the cd, for simple virus security reasons, and that trashed my WinME forcing a bare bones install. Fortunately I keep the important data on a separate partition. Mike

On Sunday 13 June 2004 03:31, jfweber@bellsouth.net wrote:

they very likely would do something like, "click on the file " they want to install, at that point , up pops a window which says , would you like to install this w/ yast2( ?) not certain is says yast2 it may just say yast...  average 6 year old would likely say ( click) "yes" and the thing would be installed,

Nope. It will ask for root's password. That's a GOOD THING (tm). Six year olds have no business installing software, even on their own computer. -- _____________________________________ John Andersen

John Andersen wrote on 13 June 2004 20:46

On Sunday 13 June 2004 02:35, Damon Jebb wrote:

...

I tend to feel that this is something of a separate argument from whether or not the fundamentals of the design and intent of the operating system is better suited to the unskilled home user.  It is my belief, and nothing that has been written here has changed it, that Linux will not suit the unskilled user.

I think you could make that argument in reverse, that windows is not suited for new or unskilled users. Having sold machines pre-loaded with windows for many years I can recall numerous machines that came back as broken when what really happened was the user deleted huge parts of the OS because they simply didn't understand what all that "stuff" on thier hard drive was, and thought it was a waste of disk space.

Similarly, 6 year olds installing software unaided is part of the problem, not a selling point.

I repeat, I am not and never have advocated the 6 year old installing software scenario. This is often the argument pur by the enthusiasts on this group for why Linux is indeed easier than Windows. Damon

söndag 13 juni 2004 07:57 skrev John Andersen:

(Of course, I won't mention the fact that even with Windows 98-XP installed you STILL are not thru buying stuff just to finish your next great novel or balance your checkbook. - No, you have another couple hundered bucks of software to buy). Ooops, I guess I did mention it.

Windows XP is actually quite a nice system Fact of the matter is, if Microsoft had made Windows NT the way XP is, Linux probably would never have gotten a chance. As of now, they're a bit late with it as everyone, including me, is a bit sceptic about it's stability. Sceptisism that has come from having seen to many blue screens. About safety, there is a personal firewall (a sort of, anyway) inside Windows XP ... it may have flaws and stuff, but it's still there and provides some security. And on the issue of "professionalism", as an arguement, then Linux is still going a very similar way and making a separate Enterprise version that does cost a lot of money. But Linux has, a lot more options and usable software out of the box, than Windows does. That part is undeniable. Not to mention, the open source, makes it very hard to include undesired code in the product. However, it does not exclude it, as with time people will start trusting the software and thus stop scrutinising it ...

-- _____________________________________ John Andersen

On Sun, 2004-06-13 at 08:00, Örn Hansen wrote:

söndag 13 juni 2004 07:57 skrev John Andersen:

...

(Of course, I won't mention the fact that even with Windows 98-XP installed you STILL are not thru buying stuff just to finish your next great novel or balance your checkbook. - No, you have another couple hundered bucks of software to buy). Ooops, I guess I did mention it.

Windows XP is actually quite a nice system Fact of the matter is, if Microsoft had made Windows NT the way XP is, Linux probably would never have gotten a chance. As of now, they're a bit late with it as everyone, including me, is a bit sceptic about it's stability. Sceptisism that has come from having seen to many blue screens.

Maybe they shouldn't have canned Xenix, but developed it. Then there would be a world wide Unix clone available, but I doubt that it would adhere to standards for too long if ever. Mike

On Saturday 12 June 2004 11:44, Scott Leighton wrote:

 I myself experienced some of the flustrations he wrote about. The cut and paste example resonates strongly with me, I _still_ haven't figured out what obscure scheme klipper uses to decide what is current on the klipboard for pasting. Whatever that scheme is it is NOT intuitive and IMHO there is no excuse, no user should have to go read a manual to figure out how to cut and paste between applications.

Its what ever you highlight last. And as far as never having to read a manual, that comment speaks volumes. How did you learn windows? Spoon fed from birth? Its just one more example of your bias based on familiarity. Had you use the standard 'nix way of cut and paste from the start you would never call the MS way intuitive. Yes there are a few applications that misbehave in this regard in linux, but they are not part of linux simply applications. Pegasus Emailer (windows) also has flaky cut and paste support - yet you don't lay that baby at Microsoft's door do you!?! -- _____________________________________ John Andersen

On Sat, 2004-06-12 at 15:13, John Andersen wrote:

On Saturday 12 June 2004 10:32, Scott Leighton wrote:

...

I like Linux and am now a SuSE user of a little over 1 month. I have no intention of going back to windows, but the fact is that none of the Linux distros are ready for home desktop use by the typical non-technical user.

And XP is? You mean the same XP that will be infected within 15 minutes of putting it on the net right out of the box?

Which is why you pre-order MS' security CD. I've got the Feb,2004 in my hand right now. When SP2 for XP is out I'll order that as well. When my brother upgrades to XP on his system, well, I might get over there in a few weeks. Fact is the typical home Windows user does not really do their security updates, nor invest in the time to get the update CD's. Unfortunate truth is some businesses don't either, like Sampo Bank. None of my Windows using relatives have even tried to order one to make their lives simpler. Why should they? The family Linux guy did. :) Gee once again MS hides behind Linux for security.

At any given time there are a million zombie XP machines spitting out spam and viruses because their non-technical users simply did what Microsoft Told them to do.

Two years after it was introduced, XP STILL comes out of the box broken, insecure, and unpatched. What possible excuse is there for that?

It shouldn't get pre-installed unpatched. SP1 is available widely at computer shows, so any builder ought to have a copy handy to update the system, soon this ought to be the case with SP2.

...

It is far too complicated to get things running and configured correctly and the author of the article hit it right on in his points.

Its just as difficult to get XP configured correctly. And those configurations are not consolidated in Yast but hidden all over a dozen control panel applets, many of which seemingly have nothing to do with what you are trying to configure. Some are burried so deep you have to google for them. Plug in a wireless card while hardwired to your local network and XP decides it should bridge the two!

You are simply more familiar with XP. Had you chosen XP as your first windows OS after being familiar with Linux for several years you be shakeing your head in disgust.

You have an agenda you want to push, and its obvious.

If you had chosen XP after using NT you'd also be shaking your head in disgust. I know I do. :) Mike

On Sun, 2004-06-13 at 02:10, John Andersen wrote:

On Saturday 12 June 2004 14:25, Mike McMullin wrote:

...

...

And XP is? You mean the same XP that will be infected within 15 minutes of putting it on the net right out of the box?

Which is why you pre-order MS' security CD. I've got the Feb,2004 in my hand right now. When SP2 for XP is out I'll order that as well. When my brother upgrades to XP on his system, well, I might get over there in a few weeks. Fact is the typical home Windows user does not really do their security updates, nor invest in the time to get the update CD's.

Well you did a good job of deflateing your own argument there Mike, but I suspect you knew that. ;-)

That's arguable John. I'm always doing my Windows the way I want it, not the way it came. When I set up my 386 under 3.11 WFWG I used a ram drive, the guy who bought the system off of me, let his brother, a typical windows user at it, and turned it into a paperweight, he also seemed to have used one of the install disks for other data. I've now got that system back and it is running 98se, when it does run, which has been a few years. I keep meaning to install debian on it and hack away at that until I'm comfortable with it. I just don't do a windows install, I do a system setup, anti-virus, office suite - OOo, decent lightweight multifile editor - Edit Pad, clipboard functionality extender - clipboard magic, web browser - Opera. All of the stuff that I think makes windows usable in an effective way. I usually tell the person who gets the system to invest in Norton Utilities. It'll save me time when I have to come over and fix things. :) I ordered the the Feb-2004 security CD because my son has a laptop that he needs for school, and it came with XP-Pro already installed. (Sigh I had tried to get them to go Linux, but the school board tech folks don't do linux officially. I've been lobbying for him to be able to access the school's network. No way!! I'm told. There's no guarantee that his laptop is secure. Well duh, you guys chose the worst OS for that didn't you! I suppose when I get it dual booting with Linux this summer, they'll shoot back that Linux is going to be a source of infestation to their NT network, not to mention they probably won't know how to get things properly set up, and won't let me do it for them.)

Again, the need for a SP2, and the need for a virus checker, and the need for MS Office, and the need for Quicken, etc. etc. before the XP machine is usefull speaks against the so called "Out of the Box satisfaction" so highly touted for XP.

I spend a lot of time and energy telling people to limit their exposure to the full line of MS products. MS has done a brilliant job of making computing accessible for the likes of Aunt Tillie, but they haven't got their security up to where it needs to be. Virus scanners must now be able to scan .vbs and .doc files looking for malicious code, it's just too much, and it's part of what drives me to Linux. I spend too much time on the Windows system in my home, doing simple and useless maintainance and security, to be able to use the OS to get done what I want to get done. why? Because I got four typical Windows users who count on it all being done for them, by someone who isn't a typical windows user. Mike -- and don't get me started on Win-ME

On Saturday 12 June 2004 15:38, Damon Jebb wrote:

John Andersen wrote on 12 June 2004 20:14

...

You have an agenda you want to push, and its obvious.

So apparently have you. Your view of YaST is as unballanced as you suggest Scott's is of control panel. There are inconsistencies and bugs in the operation of YaST and it is no easier to find the information (googling for it) than in the case of XP.

Damon

Point taken. But I'd like point out that little Search button in the bottom of the Yast2 Main window.... -- _____________________________________ John Andersen

Two years after it was introduced, XP STILL comes out of the box broken, insecure, and unpatched. What possible excuse is there for that? XP currently comes with service pack 1a already installed. Which leaves you with, last time I checked, bout 12 updates to do. Which is far less than YOU

On Saturday 12 June 2004 21:13, John Andersen wrote: threw at me last time I installed SUSE. If you buy a Windows 2000 CD now, you get SP4 - again, leaving you to do 16 or so updates. I'm not trying to say Windows is not insecure, but Microsoft has certainly made quite a few improvements. Working for a company that does a lot of desktop support (amongst other things), I can see this every day. We spend a lot of time putting out fires on Windows98 PCs, while we seldom hear a squeak from our clients using Windows 2000/XP.

You are simply more familiar with XP. Had you chosen XP as your first windows OS after being familiar with Linux for several years you be shakeing your head in disgust.

I guess it works both ways. -- Kind regards Hans du Plooy Newington Consulting Services hansdp at newingtoncs dot co dot za

On Sunday 13 June 2004 08:28, John Andersen wrote:

On Saturday 12 June 2004 17:39, Hans du Plooy wrote:

...

XP currently comes with service pack 1a already installed.  Which leaves you with, last time I checked, bout 12 updates to do.

That depends entirely on where you buy the machine. Not all pre-installers put the service packs on, So who's fault is it if you get a preloaded machine without the updates? Of course, it's the supplier who loaded Windows without doing the updates.

and if you go to the store and buy XP in the retail box it is STILL unpatched, an it contains no notices of any patches or service packs. No but it does tell you to use Windows Update the first time you boot into it. That little annoying yellow popup in the lower left corner that most people just close without reading it.

Windows XP or 2000 without the service packs shouldn't even be on the market any more, and you can demand it from your dealer or go someplace else. Even in this technologically retarded third world country where I live, I can walk 5 blocks to the nearest dealer and buy Win2k or XP with SP4/SP1a respectively. My point is, we linux users take security for granted (wrongly, in part, because linux machines without their patches applied and firewalls installed, get rooted and compromised too), just as windows users take things like (subjective) ease of use and hardware compatibility for granted. STILL, with basic precautions, a network of windows PCs can be made secure. The company I work for does, amongst other things, desktop support for SMEs. We have PCs and servers running anything from Windows 98 to Win2k3 server. We have not had a single infected PC all year so far. No Sasser, no Blaster, no Netsky, no MyDoom. We're lucky in linux. The numbers are on our side. If linux was on 90% of the world's desktops, we had all better do our updates and run a firewall - there would be a lot more guys out there trying to make trouble for us. Granted, it would be harder, but not impossible.

Because of this, XP (and Win2k) have done more damage to the internet and inflicted more costs on users than any other software. Agreed.

-- Kind regards Hans du Plooy Newington Consulting Services hansdp at newingtoncs dot co dot za

On Sunday 13 June 2004 16:52, Patrick Shanahan wrote:

No, it's *your* fault for buying. The product will not exist if you do not buy it. Simple Economics 101, no demand = no product. I will not buy a *new* machine for my use if *any* version of windoz is included in the purchase price.

It's like saying you won't buy a car because someone might steal it. I won't buy a machine preloaded with Windows either. In fact, I won't buy a pre-built machine at all. But that's not what this thread is about, now is it? -- Kind regards Hans du Plooy Newington Consulting Services hansdp at newingtoncs dot co dot za

On Sunday 13 June 2004 05:45, Hans du Plooy wrote:

We're lucky in linux.  The numbers are on our side.  If linux was on 90% of the world's desktops, we had all better do our updates and run a firewall - there would be a lot more guys out there trying to make trouble for us.   Granted, it would be harder, but not impossible.

This is the old Market Share argument used to explain why windows is such a security sieve. That argument has been throughly debunked in many places on the net and I won't repeat them here. Its part of the Microsoft FUD checklist and it appears you've swollowed it hook line and sinker. And how DARE you call Norway a "technologically retarded third world country " !!! Trolltech http://www.trolltech.com/ Opera http://www.opera.com/ -- _____________________________________ John Andersen

On Sunday 13 June 2004 13:08, Hans du Plooy wrote:

...

And how DARE you call Norway a   "technologically retarded third world country "  !!!

I can only wish I lived in Norway.  Or even in the general vicinity of Norway...

-- Kind regards Hans du Plooy Newington Consulting Services hansdp at newingtoncs dot co dot za

My bad... got my threads mixed up... -- _____________________________________ John Andersen

John Andersen wrote:

On Sunday 13 June 2004 05:45, Hans du Plooy wrote:

...

We're lucky in linux. The numbers are on our side. If linux was on 90% of the world's desktops, we had all better do our updates and run a firewall - there would be a lot more guys out there trying to make trouble for us. Granted, it would be harder, but not impossible.

This is the old Market Share argument used to explain why windows is such a security sieve.

That argument has been throughly debunked in many places on the net and I won't repeat them here. Its part of the Microsoft FUD checklist and it appears you've swollowed it hook line and sinker.

It's a nice one, the numbers game, sounds plausible for a load of old baloney. I started another thread asking if anyone would switch from Linux to Windows if Microsoft had produced what we have as Linux was first and designed by Microsoft, then some idiot Finn came up with Windows that was so easy to make viruses and worms for and they could easily propagate to just about every machine running it. So many years Windows has been designed to work on one single platform and it's still not up to snuff on security and barely robust enough. Dr. Jekyll will tell you he never has any problems with Windows, then Mr. Hyde will tell you he had this problem and that.

And how DARE you call Norway a "technologically retarded third world country " !!!

Trolltech http://www.trolltech.com/ Opera http://www.opera.com/

He said that?! Dear, oh Dear, I must rpm -e both opera and qt without delay. It's even worse, as Norway is supposedly less technologically retarded than Finland, I'm in deep trouble here as I've got no Windows CD's. What's a body to do on a Sunday night?. Regards Sid. -- Sid Boyce .... Hamradio G3VBV and keen Flyer ===== LINUX ONLY USED HERE =====

Linux is working on this old desktop a PII 350Mhz with 256MB. Out of the box Evolution would not read the mail from the other but after Yast twice (once for about 40 patches and once for the Kernal that was fixed upon reboot. I dont have a burner on this box so Ill test that next week when I backup. 9.1 took 90 minutes for a clean install 8.2 took 70 minutes. network had issues but tests proved that was the university's fault. Boots slightly slow on this box and the setup presumes you have a monitor with 1280X1024 but as the home monitor does thats manageable. Mozilla which was on the speedbar did not start so I removed it and manued over and dragged to bar and it works, must be in new location. Sound works out of the box. On this box local time was recognized and accepted on the PIII where all was a clean install including formatting /home UTC was default but that was a simple fix. On the issue of using the previous users at install I told the system to create each user and when the system found the preexisting directorys it prompted me to automagically change owner for the new numerical system which starts at 1000. Later as root I did a system adduser for the second user and that also worked as had the install setup. All in all having used 7.0 upto 9.1 for ease of use speed of install and perfomance this is the best yet but I do expect to need another PIII by the time 10.x comes out. On another note install did not recognize my dos partitions but I saved the old fstab so Ill just edit and see how it goes. CWSIV

Scott Leighton wrote:

...

He needs to start with the context that hardware is only difficult to address because hardware manufacturers release inadequately complete driver sets. Why, he's talking about his experience with a Linux distribution versus Windows. What makes you think that he is obligated to explain his experience in terms of what hardware mfgs choose to do or not do.

He is pretending to offer an evenhanded comparison yet fails to note that XP only loads cleanly on hardware selected for compatibilty with XP but whines that Linux doesn't load cleanly on hardware not selected for it. The comparison lacks integrity.

...

He needs to observe that even when hardware manufacturers market defective devices (e.g. winmodems) Linux folks have been able work around some of that junk and force functionality. Ditto. He's a user, a user could care less about the politics of whether or not manufacturers choose to support any particular OS. A user simply cares about whether or not the box 'works'.

The XP box 'works' only because it uses XP-compatible hardware. The Linux box 'works' just as easily on Linux-compatible hardware. The most important difference is that when confronted with less-than-optimally-compatible hardware the Linux user has a prayer of getting it to work, the XP-turnkey-user is often out of luck and without a prayer.

...

He also needs to observe that a pattern of Microsoft manipulation has long-since been documented wherein they have pressured hardware manufacturers to refuse to release sufficient data to allow Linux folks to do what they (the manuafacturer) should -- package Linux drivers along with MS and Mac drivers. That crap is nothing but excuses. A user cares nothing about it and frankly is sounds like whining to me.

Give me similar influence over the available hardware driver pool for a year and I will bankrupt Microsoft -- facts are not whining.

...

He needs to note that SuSE 9 and 9.1 and Mandrake 10 and other newer distros load and run with similar levels of ease to XP -- but that just as with XP one must choose approved hardware -- because XP will not run on any hardware anywhere anytime -- though there are far more companies configuring their PC's to favor XP compatibility than those doing so for Linux -- the advantage of M$'s current superior user-base position in the marketplace. You are flat out wrong. There is no similarity in ease of use between Linux distros and XP. XP wins hands down. You have an agenda you want to push, the author doesn't.

Since I have used various flavors of DOS, Windows, Apple, Vax VMS, Linux, and BSD -- some of them likely before the author was off baby food I am more qualified than he to make the comparison, not less. That said there is no honest comparison of XP to Suse 9 or 9.1 anywhere -- on equally compatible hardware -- that does not find Suse the equal (and in many ways better) than XP -- in loading and operation. This doesn't even begin to address the vast superiority of Suse in security, stability, cost, and flexibility. If one is to claim a comparison one must do so using standards with technological integrity, something the author failed miserably to do, thus my critique -- one which stands ineffectually challenged on the facts. -- Blessings ... dmc West Central Florida ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ This E-mail was generated using SuSE 9.0 Linux & Mozilla. This PC is free of all Microsoft products. Visit: www.suse.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Carlos E. R. wrote:

The Saturday 2004-06-12 at 11:32 -0700, Scott Leighton wrote:

...

I like Linux and am now a SuSE user of a little over 1 month. I have no intention of going back to windows, but the fact is that none of the Linux distros are ready for home desktop use by the typical non-technical user. It is far too complicated to get things running and configured correctly and the author of the article hit it right on in his points.

Ah, one month.

Er... For how long have you being using windows, a few years at least? Well, when you are as experienced using Linux as Windows, say, two years from now, we retake this point.

A point I've argued over the years with many highly respected authors. You should have seen the first articles from people like Timothy Butler and Nick Petreley in high profile printed magazines and newspapers reported in Linux forums, both have changed their views as I told them they would, Butler and his company have since become the staunchest advocates of Linux. Henson in the Sunday Times savagely flamed and insulted Linux, got savagely flamed back and insulted back by some, flamed the flamers as insulting spoilt Linux kids - pretty un-Sunday Times it was . His second pass was milder a year later as I told him it would be - his main complaint this time was that he couldn't use Linux for his music composition work, I pointed him to apps that would do just that. Third pass, milder yet a year after, but still not warm, nothing further from him for about three years.

You can not pretend to compare ease of use, either as user or as administrator between so different operating systems and programs and environments, etc, when your experience and knowledge of both is so dissimilar.

That perhaps explains why I've never found Windows user friendly and also why I've never understood Mac enough to get anything running under (admittedly) a Mac emulator, the GUI was a Mac, but I couldn't find the INTUITIVE button. Put me on a desert island with them both and nothing else but bread and water, shade and a wind generator to keep the batteries charged, I'd probably become accomplished as a user in the months spent there. Regards Sid. -- Sid Boyce .... Hamradio G3VBV and keen Flyer ===== LINUX ONLY USED HERE =====

On Saturday 12 June 2004 18:18, LeRoy DeVries wrote:

I think it is great that we have a choice and to each it's own. IMO there is no sense in trying to convert a windows user. For me I have been using windows product for over 20 years. I have only begun to use Linux. My 1st impression is that so far I prefer windows along with all that 3rd part support. I'm just giving you my 1st observations. Perhaps things will change in the future just like windows did for DOS and the ole Timex/Apple computer.

Well, just keep an open mind. The more you learn the better you will know. But I gotta ask... Whats all that bit about 3rd Part(y?) support? You are here in a mailing list where people from around the world will answer almost any question within seconds with no expectation of anything other than a Thank You in return. -- _____________________________________ John Andersen

On Saturday 12 June 2004 10:18 pm, LeRoy DeVries wrote:

I think it is great that we have a choice and to each it's own. IMO there is no sense in trying to convert a windows user. For me I have been using windows product for over 20 years.

Really?? When did you first start using Windows?

I have only begun to use Linux. My 1st impression is that so far I prefer windows along with all that 3rd part support. I'm just giving you my 1st observations. Perhaps things will change in the future just like windows did for DOS and the ole Timex/Apple computer.

-- +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ + Bruce S. Marshall bmarsh@bmarsh.com Bellaire, MI 06/13/04 06:03 + +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ "It's impossible to sneeze with your eyes open. (DON'T try this @ home!)"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Saturday 12 June 2004 13:32, Scott Leighton wrote:

On Saturday 12 June 2004 11:01 am, dmc wrote:

...

Scott Leighton wrote:

...

On Saturday 12 June 2004 10:44 am, Donn Washburn wrote:

...

Care to straighten this Guy out?

" http://www.hal-pc.org/journal/2004/05_may/buying.html "

Not really, he's dead on right. I agree with him 100%.

Scott

He is only partially correct and burying half-truths and uninformed perspective within a presumably thoughtful article leads to others parroting the same unclear thinking.

He needs to start with the context that hardware is only difficult to address because hardware manufacturers release inadequately complete driver sets.

Why, he's talking about his experience with a Linux distribution versus Windows. What makes you think that he is obligated to explain his experience in terms of what hardware mfgs choose to do or not do.

He never mentions *which* distro. Did he just jump right into Slackware? Maybe Gentoo? Not easy distros for most people not already used to Linux. If he has so many "friends" that run Linux systems, why didn't he bother asking them how to do things, since he obviously was too stupid to try and actually figure anything out on his own? Why didn't he ask on the distro's newsgroup or mailing list...is he too stupid to know those things exist too? In wonduhsXPee NG's, the most found answer to people saying some piece of hardware isn't working is "You should have done some research first"...but apparently this guy doesn't think that has to be done with Linux. Hypocrasy *and* double-standards if ever there was any.

...

He needs to observe that even when hardware manufacturers market defective devices (e.g. winmodems) Linux folks have been able work around some of that junk and force functionality.

Ditto. He's a user, a user could care less about the politics of whether or not manufacturers choose to support any particular OS. A user simply cares about whether or not the box 'works'.

Then it's time that 'Joe User' learned that because he has a computer now, it's not there to let him remain stupid or get more stupid/lazy. It still requires 'thinking'. I know too many winduhs users who buy or download some silly app, only to call me up and ask me how to use or install the damn thing!

...

He also needs to observe that a pattern of Microsoft manipulation has long-since been documented wherein they have pressured hardware manufacturers to refuse to release sufficient data to allow Linux folks to do what they (the manuafacturer) should -- package Linux drivers along with MS and Mac drivers.

That crap is nothing but excuses. A user cares nothing about it and frankly is sounds like whining to me.

Not just "excuses", but valid ones. Many drivers in Linux that *make* hardware work, had to be written from scratch because the sorry-assed manufacturers have their lips so far up M$'s ass they tickle the back of Billy-boys throat! It only 'sounds' like whining to *you*, because you have no clue to the reality of it all or just don't seem to care.

...

He needs to note that SuSE 9 and 9.1 and Mandrake 10 and other newer distros load and run with similar levels of ease to XP -- but that just as with XP one must choose approved hardware -- because XP will not run on any hardware anywhere anytime -- though there are far more companies configuring their PC's to favor XP compatibility than those doing so for Linux -- the advantage of M$'s current superior user-base position in the marketplace.

You are flat out wrong. There is no similarity in ease of use between Linux distros and XP. XP wins hands down. You have an agenda you want to push, the author doesn't.

Not wrong at all. Go visit microsoft.public.windowsxp.general for a week, then come back here and say that. Also, since the author decided to put his FUD on the 'net, making it public, he's trying to carry his own agenda.

I like Linux and am now a SuSE user of a little over 1 month. I have no intention of going back to windows, but the fact is that none of the Linux distros are ready for home desktop use by the typical non-technical user. It is far too complicated to get things running and configured correctly and the author of the article hit it right on in his points.

My 65 year old mom uses SuSE 8.2. She uses it just fine. When she downloaded her first tarball, all she did was call me and ask me if there was anything special to do, and I gave her instructions that she wrote down (I guess that's too hard for other Joe Users to do too, right?), and she went on from there. The only thing I did during installation, was to tell her about partitioning, but I let *her* do it all. She is *not* a tech person in any sense of the word. She emails, watches a movie now and then and chats and writes her book using OO...that's about all she knows or wants to do with it.

...

'nuff said.

Whatever.

The sign of a really open mind...NOT. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3rc2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFAy7YVH5oDXyLKXKQRAhD5AKCegy4GYTTN4IoJa9UsCZinWh6NWACdFVdo sRCVfRnVl7sSFB/m+4CI464= =45OX -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Scott - You are totally accurate in your comment. This guy doesn't say Linux is bad, Linux doesn't work, ...... He says for him it is in the same stage of development today as was NT4 when he tried it. He has not placed a VALUE on it, but rather identifies a MAJOR problem with Linux today, even if he doesn't say so in exact words, and that is a lack of hardware support FROM THE VENDORS. And it's oh so true. Just like it was for NT4 when many of us were forced at work tousle it as a desktop OS. I think he has written a good piece and it is something we all need to try and help solve by putting pressure on any vendor with strong requests for Linux drivers. Every time I talk to a vendor / manufacturer I put in a STRONG request for Linux support. If we all did that more I think we could help this situation along in our favor. We are getting closer and closer every month but there is still a long way to go. In essence, let's not kill the messenger who says what is true; let's instead work for better hardware support, and I'm not talking about it being the responsibilities of the distro manufacturers. dave Scott Leighton wrote:

On Saturday 12 June 2004 10:44 am, Donn Washburn wrote:

...

Care to straighten this Guy out?

" http://www.hal-pc.org/journal/2004/05_may/buying.html "

Not really, he's dead on right. I agree with him 100%.

Scott

-- David C. Johanson Linux Counter # 116410 Powered by SuSE Linux 7.3

On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 22:06:55 -0800 John Andersen wrote:

But you are correct it belongs on OT.

Whoa, there! We don't want it! Terence