Wolfgang Woehl writes:

James Knott:

...

Alexey Eremenko wrote:

...

...

However, I would like to change to wording from "manager", because it is impossible to manage community, into something more appropriate, such as: "representative" or "leader".

Cat herder? ;-)

Horse whisperer?

Guys, a title always gives somebody wrong connotations. Please look on what he has to say and what he will do and judge him on that. He's a manager, he'll be part of the community, gets payed by Novell - and I expect that he helps to bridge between the two of them in a much better way than I do (since I have other tasks to do). Please give him a warm welcome and work with him! Andreas -- Andreas Jaeger, Director Platform / openSUSE, aj@suse.de SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F FED1 389A 563C C272 A126

Hi Philippe, On Tuesday 05 February 2008 5:35:41 am Philippe Landau wrote:

His title says more about Novell's intentions then about the holder of the title.

Actually, the job was originally to be called "Chief Evangelist," if you look at the original job postings. However, we discussed the title and thought that the "community manager" title was more appropriate and sort of standard within the industry. There's a good post here about what a community manager does: http://www.web-strategist.com/blog/2006/11/16/what-a-community-manager-does/ That's not a perfect description of my role, but it certainly is close to the mark. I think Novell's intentions are to improve relations with the community, and help openSUSE grow as a project. If they were looking for a more traditional manager type, I don't think I would have been the first choice for the job.

I hope you are aware that names are important carriers of messages.

You're right. It was hoped that the community manager title was entrenched enough -- look at other community managers like Jono Bacon, for example -- that people would understand what we intended.

Great to think that Novell could be investing in bridging the gap between famously detached big corporations and the users ? Is he going to participate here too ?

Yes. I have been describing my job as part community advocate and ombudsman. I want to be able to get feedback from the community at large and go back to Novell, the openSUSE board, and openSUSE developers, to help articulate the community's needs for openSUSE and also articulate the community's wishes with respect to the direction of the project. That's not my entire role, but it is a very, very large part of it.

Or is he there purely to optimise the output of the developers who are working for free.

No. I do want to make sure that the project is efficient in terms of allowing contributors to get useful work done in areas where they're interested in contributing, my job is *not* to serve as a taskmaster. Best, Zonker -- Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier openSUSE Community Manager jzb@zonker.net | zonker@opensuse.org http://zonker.opensuse.org/ | http://www.dissociatedpress.net/ -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Hi, On Tuesday, February 05, 2008 at 17:07:40, Philippe Landau wrote:

...

Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier openSUSE Community Manager Maybe the Germans liked it because they like authority figures they can look up to and titles having that effect.

Dude where have you been the last 60 years? f'up to opensuse-offtopic Henne -- Henne Vogelsang, openSUSE. Everybody has a plan, until they get hit. - Mike Tyson -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

On Tuesday 05 February 2008 11:07:40 am Philippe Landau wrote:

Thanks for your reply, Joe Zonker :-)

Not a problem.

What does Zonker mean ?

It's just a nickname, it doesn't have a literal meaning.

Interesting you should refer to the "industry". "Industry" and "Community" are not easily reconciled

It may not be easy to find a good balance between community and "industry," but that's part of my job.

May i point you to a problem i am observing here, a disconnect and break in communication ?

Sure.

I don't know how interested OpenSuse is in fixing bugs. When i had difficulty searching for bugs, nobody replied. Most users seem to have given up filing bug reports because developers seem disinterested except in the cases where they are working on something already. Even Novell's own employees seem to prefer Non-OSS work-arounds then filing bug reports. (See for example "Monitor resolution").

Can you point me to something in bugzilla? I'm not quite sure what you're referring to here.

Looking forward to your success, Joe :-)

Thank you, I appreciate that. Best, Zonker -- Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier openSUSE Community Manager jzb@zonker.net | zonker@opensuse.org http://zonker.opensuse.org/ | http://www.dissociatedpress.net/ -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Andreas Jaeger wrote:

...

...

Cat herder? ;-)

Horse whisperer?

Guys, a title always gives somebody wrong connotations. Please look on what he has to say and what he will do and judge him on that. He's a manager, he'll be part of the community, gets payed by Novell - and I expect that he helps to bridge between the two of them in a much better way than I do (since I have other tasks to do). Please give him a warm welcome and work with him!

Perhaps "Zonker" might feel inclined to introduce himself to the list? Wrt use of "manager" in the English language - it means nothing and everything. See also "pointyhaired". /Per Jessen, Zürich -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Basil Chupin a écrit :

Assets Manager - which in reality turned out to be the job of collecting the trolleys left by shoppers around the area and bringing them back to the store.

in France "Technicien de surface", what can be seen as a translation for asset manager, means the people that clean the ground at night... necessary, but not the same management thing we need (hope zonker don't do this outside his own home :-)) jdd -- http://www.dodin.net -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier wrote:

On Tuesday 05 February 2008 6:26:29 am Per Jessen wrote:

...

Perhaps "Zonker" might feel inclined to introduce himself to the list?

Hi!

Please pardon my tardiness here -- there are a lot of channels of communication within openSUSE, and I'm just getting started. I do plan to be actively participating on the lists. Also, feel free to shoot me an email directly if you wish to have a discussion about something off-list. (zonker@opensuse.org or jzb@zonker.net)

...

Wrt use of "manager" in the English language - it means nothing and everything. See also "pointyhaired".

:-)

http://dilbert.com/comics/dilbert/archive/images/dilbert20183360080205.gif ;-) -- Use OpenOffice.org http://www.openoffice.org -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

On Tuesday 05 February 2008 09:35, Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier wrote:

On Tuesday 05 February 2008 6:26:29 am Per Jessen wrote:

...

Perhaps "Zonker" might feel inclined to introduce himself to the list?

Hi!

Please pardon my tardiness here -- there are a lot of channels of communication within openSUSE, and I'm just getting started. I do plan to be actively participating on the lists. Also, feel free to shoot me an email directly if you wish to have a discussion about something off-list. (zonker@opensuse.org or jzb@zonker.net)

/snip/

:-)

-- Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier openSUSE Community Manager jzb@zonker.net | zonker@opensuse.org http://zonker.opensuse.org/ | http://www.dissociatedpress.net/

Well, Zonker, I think that the consensus here on the list is that Novell should make boxed editions with manuals available for purchase, and for best effect, (IMHO) should make them available at the same time as the on-line release--before everyone finds out how crappy the release really is. I see that there was some discussion about reliability vs. bleeding edge, and I don't know what the consensus of that was, but I'm running 9.3, if that tells you anything. (And I have 10.0, which I bought.) If Novell will sell SuSE with some legal drivers which are now left out,and sell it thru Staples and/or bookstores, it would really help to spread the product around, which I assume they would like to do. And might even make some money-- who's paying for all this freeware, anyway? BTW, I'm not in favor of .pdf "manuals." I don't really want to burn a ream of printer paper and a half cup of toner just to have the manual in my lap in my armchair. That strikes me as awfully inefficient, not to mention expensive. It will be interesting to see what effect you have on Novell, and I wish you the best of luck with that endeavor. --doug Blessed are the peacemakers ... for they shall be shot at from both sides. --A.M. Greeley -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 The Tuesday 2008-02-05 at 14:33 -0800, Greg KH wrote:

On Tue, Feb 05, 2008 at 05:40:53PM -0500, Doug McGarrett wrote:

...

If Novell will sell SuSE with some legal drivers which are now left out,

What do you mean by this?

I guess he means proprietary software/drivers/whatever for multimedia, for instance, like movies DVDs, paying whomever has the license. Or the nvidia/ati drivers. Time ago the boxed version did include proprietary software that was not included in the ftp version. - -- Cheers, Carlos E. R. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4-svn0 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFHqQJ1tTMYHG2NR9URAjc6AJ98KqOcDcjmGZyb37BZAwQ2AiKtGQCfcpCS xACtXmt0oHOHeY+eSmuE7w8= =yaPu -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Doug McGarrett wrote:

On Tuesday 05 February 2008 09:35, Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier wrote:

...

On Tuesday 05 February 2008 6:26:29 am Per Jessen wrote:

...

Perhaps "Zonker" might feel inclined to introduce himself to the list? Hi!

Please pardon my tardiness here -- there are a lot of channels of communication within openSUSE, and I'm just getting started. I do plan to be actively participating on the lists. Also, feel free to shoot me an email directly if you wish to have a discussion about something off-list. (zonker@opensuse.org or jzb@zonker.net)

/snip/

...

:-)

...

-- Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier openSUSE Community Manager jzb@zonker.net | zonker@opensuse.org http://zonker.opensuse.org/ | http://www.dissociatedpress.net/

Well, Zonker, I think that the consensus here on the list is that Novell should make boxed editions with manuals available for purchase, and for best effect, (IMHO) should make them available at the same time as the on-line release--before everyone finds out how crappy the release really is. I see that there was some discussion about reliability vs. bleeding edge, and I don't know what the consensus of that was, but I'm running 9.3, if that tells you anything. (And I have 10.0, which I bought.) If Novell will sell SuSE with some legal drivers which are now left out,and sell it thru Staples and/or bookstores, it would really help to spread the product around, which I assume they would like to do. And might even make some money-- who's paying for all this freeware, anyway?

BTW, I'm not in favor of .pdf "manuals." I don't really want to burn a ream of printer paper and a half cup of toner just to have the manual in my lap in my armchair. That strikes me as awfully inefficient, not to mention expensive.

For a mere fraction of what you would pay for the manuals I believe you could take the pdf to a print shop and have a copy printed.

It will be interesting to see what effect you have on Novell, and I wish you the best of luck with that endeavor.

--doug

Blessed are the peacemakers ... for they shall be shot at from both sides. --A.M. Greeley

-- kr -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Darragh O'Heiligh wrote:

...

...

...

On 06/02/2008 at 12:34:05, in message <47A9A93D.4000208@cybsft.com>, "K.R. Foley" wrote: BTW, I'm not in favor of .pdf "manuals." I don't really want to burn a ream of printer paper and a half cup of toner just to have the manual in my lap in my armchair. That strikes me as awfully inefficient, not to mention expensive. For a mere fraction of what you would pay for the manuals I believe you could take the pdf to a print shop and have a copy printed.

That's fine but remember there are those of us using OpenSuSE that rely on this PDF. Removing it entirely would be worse. You may object to having to print out the manual, but be thankful that you have it at all! Think of those out there who actually see any kind of electronic material as a privlidge. So, yes, print away, but make sure the electronic copy stays available.

Darragh

Hi Darragh, I am not sure you understood the point I was trying to make. I too like being able to have electronic copies of manuals. In fact, I wish I could have an electronic copy of all of my many programming/reference books. It makes it much easier to carry them with you when you travel. The point I was trying to make is that for those who would prefer to have a printed copy, but don't want to print it themselves, they always have the option to get a copy printed and then they can have both. I wasn't suggesting that SuSE/Novell should print them. -- kr -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

On Tuesday 05 February 2008 5:40:53 pm Doug McGarrett wrote:

Well, Zonker, I think that the consensus here on the list is that Novell should make boxed editions with manuals available for purchase, and for best effect, (IMHO) should make them available at the same time as the on-line release--before everyone finds out how crappy the release really is. I see that there was some discussion about reliability vs. bleeding edge, and I don't know what the consensus of that was, but I'm running 9.3, if that tells you anything. (And I have 10.0, which I bought.) If Novell will sell SuSE with some legal drivers which are now left out,and sell it thru Staples and/or bookstores, it would really help to spread the product around, which I assume they would like to do. And might even make some money-- who's paying for all this freeware, anyway?

A couple of thoughts on this... one, I am using 10.3 right now, and I don't find it to be "crappy" at all. I think some other people have covered some of the problems with selling boxed product later in another thread, but I can just add -- when I worked with Linux Mall, it was really difficult to do well selling boxed copies of distributions, because of the short release cycle and such. And that was when more people bought boxed copies due to sparse availability of broadband -- now, even though more people are using Linux, fewer people want to buy the box set.

BTW, I'm not in favor of .pdf "manuals." I don't really want to burn a ream of printer paper and a half cup of toner just to have the manual in my lap in my armchair. That strikes me as awfully inefficient, not to mention expensive.

I wonder if a good compromise might be for openSUSE to put the PDFs on a service like Lulu.com and allow people to buy the manual through Lulu. Since they operate on a print-on-demand system, that might be a good way to go.

It will be interesting to see what effect you have on Novell, and I wish you the best of luck with that endeavor.

Thanks!

Blessed are the peacemakers ... for they shall be shot at from both sides.

:-) Awesome sig. Best, Zonker -- Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier openSUSE Community Manager jzb@zonker.net | zonker@opensuse.org http://zonker.opensuse.org/ | http://www.dissociatedpress.net/ -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Roger Oberholtzer a écrit :

On Wed, 2008-02-06 at 09:09 -0500, Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier wrote:

...

I wonder if a good compromise might be for openSUSE to put the PDFs on a service like Lulu.com and allow people to buy the manual through Lulu. Since they operate on a print-on-demand system, that might be a good way to go.

Does lulu.com work economically all over the world? I recall this suggestion before on this list. Some liked the idea. Others located in various parts of the world were less enthusiastic.

this should be a good starting point as it's nearly free (for opensuse) jdd -- http://www.dodin.net -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier wrote:

On Wednesday 06 February 2008 9:14:39 am Roger Oberholtzer wrote:

...

Does lulu.com work economically all over the world? I recall this suggestion before on this list. Some liked the idea. Others located in various parts of the world were less enthusiastic.

I can't honestly say for sure -- they do have a page on international shipping, here:

http://www.lulu.com/en/help/shipping_options_intl

I'm not sure if the Lulu shipping prices are in line with other sources or not.

They appear to be reasonable, but there's no mention of shipping to Switzerland :-( There's also a bit of a currency issue - at the very least, any such on-demand printer should be able to deal in EUR. /Per Jessen, Zürich -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier wrote:

On Tuesday 05 February 2008 5:40:53 pm Doug McGarrett wrote:

...

Well, Zonker, I think that the consensus here on the list is that Novell should make boxed editions with manuals available for purchase, and for best effect, (IMHO) should make them available at the same time as the on-line release--before everyone finds out how crappy the release really is. I see that there was some discussion about reliability vs. bleeding edge, and I don't know what the consensus of that was, but I'm running 9.3, if that tells you anything. (And I have 10.0, which I bought.) If Novell will sell SuSE with some legal drivers which are now left out,and sell it thru Staples and/or bookstores, it would really help to spread the product around, which I assume they would like to do. And might even make some money-- who's paying for all this freeware, anyway?

A couple of thoughts on this... one, I am using 10.3 right now, and I don't find it to be "crappy" at all.

Quality has definitely declined since 9.3. 10.0 and 10.1 have both been disappointments for me. Too much stuff that used to work flawlessly became problematic.

I think some other people have covered some of the problems with selling boxed product later in another thread, but I can just add -- when I worked with Linux Mall, it was really difficult to do well selling boxed copies of distributions, because of the short release cycle and such. And that was when more people bought boxed copies due to sparse availability of broadband -- now, even though more people are using Linux, fewer people want to buy the box set.

...

BTW, I'm not in favor of .pdf "manuals." I don't really want to burn a ream of printer paper and a half cup of toner just to have the manual in my lap in my armchair. That strikes me as awfully inefficient, not to mention expensive.

I wonder if a good compromise might be for openSUSE to put the PDFs on a service like Lulu.com and allow people to buy the manual through Lulu. Since they operate on a print-on-demand system, that might be a good way to go.

That's good *ONLY* if the users are AWARE of it. Don't depend on word-of-mouth, or "community knowledge", because a lot of new users never get that kind of information for a long time. There needs to be EXPLICIT instructions, placed perhaps in ~root, and DISPLAYED when the admin logs-in (at least for the first time) so that EVERYONE knows it exists. Burying facts like this someplace in the /share/docs hierarchy, and thinking new users will just magically find it there is a pipe dream.

...

It will be interesting to see what effect you have on Novell, and I wish you the best of luck with that endeavor.

Thanks!

...

Blessed are the peacemakers ... for they shall be shot at from both sides.

:-) Awesome sig.

Best,

Zonker

-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

On Wednesday 06 February 2008 3:36:50 pm Sloan wrote:

Not to say than any distro is perfect -

There's always room for improvement and I have great hopes for SuSE 11 -

Would this be a good time to mention that anyone interested in testing 11.0 can download the alphas and bang on those, to help ensure that we've found and squashed every bug possible? :-) (http://tinyurl.com/2dd2vm) Best, Zonker -- Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier openSUSE Community Manager jzb@zonker.net | zonker@opensuse.org http://zonker.opensuse.org/ | http://www.dissociatedpress.net/ -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Philippe Landau wrote:

Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier wrote:

...

On Wednesday 06 February 2008 3:36:50 pm Sloan wrote:

...

Not to say than any distro is perfect - There's always room for improvement and I have great hopes for SuSE 11 -

Would this be a good time to mention that anyone interested in testing 11.0 can download the alphas and bang on those, to help ensure that we've found and squashed every bug possible? :-) (http://tinyurl.com/2dd2vm)

I almost never click on a tinyurl as i don't know what it hides.

I'm a linux user, I click on anything i feel like, without fear or viruses or spyware ;) Joe -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Aaron Kulkis:

Sloan wrote:

...

Philippe Landau wrote:

...

I almost never click on a tinyurl as i don't know what it hides.

I'm a linux user, I click on anything i feel like, without fear or viruses or spyware ;)

Same here.

Security by insignificance? I'd consider getting rid of that habit whenever it will be judged by interested parties that linux desktops now ranged in the significant amounts. Or your specific box gets to be judged significant. The notion that malware on linux was technically not feasible is highly irrational. I think experienced senior linux users shouldn't keep on spreading this deceptive mantra. You should know better. Malware is not entirely about root, remember? John Doe user accounts with dsl pipes, privacy breaches, Apps-can-do-all etc. You know the list. I think it'd be good long-term practice to rather gossip about sound and decent security awareness. On any desktop. Be good, Wolfgang -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Sloan wrote:

Wolfgang Woehl wrote:

...

Aaron Kulkis:

...

Sloan wrote:

...

Philippe Landau wrote:

...

I almost never click on a tinyurl as i don't know what it hides.

I'm a linux user, I click on anything i feel like, without fear or viruses or spyware ;)

Same here.

Security by insignificance? I'd consider getting rid of that habit whenever it will be judged by interested parties that linux desktops now ranged in the significant amounts. Or your specific box gets to be judged significant.

It always seems the "man in the street" assumes that microsoft suffers from such chronic security woes only because of the overwhelming popularity of ms windows, and doesn't consider that script kiddies are just taking the low hanging fruit, the easy target.

In actuality, MS Windows and other products suffer chronic security problems because MS deliberately places backdoors in their products. Ever notice how it sometimes takes MONTHS between when a windows security problem is first reported, and when the problem is finally admitted, right as they are releasing the patch? That's because sometimes it takes that long to not only close the backdoor which the crackers have discovered, but to ALSO *CREATE* A NEW BACKDOOR so that they can continue monitoring (and spying upon) the customer base.

I've been using unix too long to be scared by the "viruses are coming, be afraid" crowd. Sure, it's possible to exploit cartain scenarios on linux and other unix-like systems, but by the nature of the design it's not as straightforward and simple as infecting a peecee operating system.

Yep. See above. Unix and Linux are written with the idea that multiple users will be logged in at the same time, that all of them are creative, but not infallible programmers, and the system must be resiliant enough to prevent any user's faulty code from crashing or destroying the whole system. This is the basis of the *nix security model. Windows is written with the idea that everybody is perfect, and nothing bad or unexpected happens -- EVER. This is why Windows doesn't really have a security model.

Prudence and reasonable security measures are appropriate for linux users - blind paranoia is not.

Joe

-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

On Thursday 07 February 2008 19:55, Wolfgang Woehl wrote:

Security by insignificance? I'd consider getting rid of that habit whenever it will be judged by interested parties that linux desktops now ranged in the significant amounts. Or your specific box gets to be judged significant.

The notion that malware on linux was technically not feasible is highly irrational. I think experienced senior linux users shouldn't keep on spreading this deceptive mantra. You should know better.

Why is it irrational? I disagree with that statement. Unless you can of course show me an attachment that auto-executes under linux.

Malware is not entirely about root, remember? John Doe user accounts with dsl pipes, privacy breaches, Apps-can-do-all etc. You know the list.

No, it's not all about root. But it is about doing something stupid. There's no other way to describe it. First it has to be downloaded/saved. Then it has to be made executable. Then it has to be run. If all three things are done, then yes, you have a problem. But it's a three step process.

I think it'd be good long-term practice to rather gossip about sound and decent security awareness. On any desktop.

True.. But you are a whole lot safer with linux that Microsoft products. Mike -- Powered by SuSE 10.0 Kernel 2.6.13 X86_64 KDE 3.4 Kmail 1.8 8:22pm up 176 days 0:54, 5 users, load average: 2.03, 2.13, 2.21 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Benji Weber wrote:

This is not the case. A browser running as a user can do anything the user is allowed to do. For example an exploit in the browser or image viewing library which can be exploited through malicious javascript or crafted image could potentially delete all your user files. It could be used to launch a denial of service attack or spam from your machine (no need for root for this). If combined with a local root exploit (which are not uncommon) it could potentially even get root and have full control over the system. Same applies to your mail client, irc client, and other such applications.

You make it sound trivial but the fact is, a bad guy will have a hell of a lot of problems trying to get root remotely on a modern linux distro.

If you completely ignore security by blindly visiting pages with possible malware on, or running all email attachments etc, even on openSUSE/GNU/Linux you are vulnerable.

Please elaborate on the above statement - provide details, examples because it all sounds very vague and alarming but there are no specifics.

If you have an ssh server listening on the internet and you watch your logs I would be surprised if you have not noticed brute force attacks. Precautions such as strong passwords and fail2ban are important even for home machines if you run sshd.

Sure, all sorts of failed attempts to login every day, because I have ssh open, but tcp wrappers severely limits the list of IPs allowed to connect and the "allow_users" line in sshd_config severely limits the list of users allowed to connect. If that were not enough, sshd runs with privilege separation, so that if a bad guy managed to break sshd, he'd get only the rights of an unprivileged user.

GNU/Linux systems are no less exploitable than windows.

Well, that's an interesting belief, but it flies in the face of overwhelming empirical evidence.

The only reason you have a false sense of security now is that you are not a significant enough target for malware authors. When that changes if too many people have the same attitude then there will be a problem.

Right, the old "windows security problems are due solely to it's overwhelming popularity" mindset often entertained by the proverbial random "man on the street". It's IMHO a naive viewpoint, since it completely ignores the architectural differences between peecee and unix operating systems. Joe -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Donnerstag, 7. Februar 2008 Randall R Schulz:

On Thursday 07 February 2008 12:34, Benji Weber wrote:

...

This is not the case. A browser running as a user can do anything the user is allowed to do.

A browser is just a browser. I can do only the things browsers do. It is not a compiler or a general-purpose computational agent.

Randall, for brevity's sake, it can do whatever an ELF LSB executable chooses to in your backyard. You are right, of course: The community has a top track record of finding and solving issues. Distros don't come with trojans and vicious firefox because of that. Great, and nowhere near the outlandish security issues Windows people have seen. So, given the amount of hard work security forums put into linux security, what was good again about repeating over and over "It's safe anyway"? What are you saying? Wolfgang -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

On Friday 08 February 2008, Randall R Schulz wrote:

On Thursday 07 February 2008 14:07, Wolfgang Woehl wrote:

...

Donnerstag, 7. Februar 2008 Randall R Schulz:

...

On Thursday 07 February 2008 12:34, Benji Weber wrote:

...

This is not the case. A browser running as a user can do anything the user is allowed to do.

A browser is just a browser. I can do only the things browsers do. It is not a compiler or a general-purpose computational agent.

Randall, for brevity's sake, it can do whatever an ELF LSB executable chooses to in your backyard.

No, that is not so. Can you point me to a known exploit on Firefox (e.g.) that allows execution of arbitrary code? 'Cause that's what you're claiming.

...

You are right, of course: The community has a top track record of finding and solving issues. Distros don't come with trojans and vicious firefox because of that. Great, and nowhere near the outlandish security issues Windows people have seen.

So, given the amount of hard work security forums put into linux security, what was good again about repeating over and over "It's safe anyway"?

The question is, what's the good of repeating over and over again that Linux is as vulnerable as Windows (a near-absolute falsehood)?

...

What are you saying?

Let me see if I can phrase this another way:

Linux is safe when used intelligently. Intelligent use includes using secure passwords and applying security upgrades when they're made available. Intelligent use excludes running binaries or scripts supplied by unknown individuals.

If that's too complicated for someone, they shouldn't be using a computer at all.

So, are Windows XP or Vista not safe then when used intelligently? --Tero Pesonen -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Tero Pesonen wrote:

On Friday 08 February 2008, Randall R Schulz wrote:

...

Linux is safe when used intelligently. Intelligent use includes using secure passwords and applying security upgrades when they're made available. Intelligent use excludes running binaries or scripts supplied by unknown individuals.

If that's too complicated for someone, they shouldn't be using a computer at all.

So, are Windows XP or Vista not safe then when used intelligently?

IMHO using a microsoft operating system intelligently (is there an oxymoron here?) involves a number of additional restrictions and caveats, as well as extra costs, as compared to using linux intelligently, which is OTOH fairly straightforward. Joe -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

On Thursday 07 February 2008 05:23:28 pm Tero Pesonen wrote:

Money? Well some one who buys a branded PC typically already pays for security apps etc. which bring added costs. Putting Linux on that hardware at home won't make the money they already paid for the Windows OS and Norton etc. stuff to be returned.

Something is missing. Most of security applications are trials, so you have to shell out money. Than next year comes subscription and in few years it adds up to amount for a new computer. Windows security is rather expensive must have. The only reason that it doesn't look bad is that it doesn't come at once. Say XY Internet Security, if it costs only $40.- after 10 years it is $400.- and with 2 computers to protect it is enough for 3rd computer. Besides it uses computer resources so you need better computer ie. more money than for Linux box to have the same computational power for your tasks. -- Regards, Rajko. See http://en.opensuse.org/Portal -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Tero Pesonen wrote:

On Friday 08 February 2008, Sloan wrote:

...

Tero Pesonen wrote:

...

On Friday 08 February 2008, Randall R Schulz wrote:

...

Linux is safe when used intelligently. Intelligent use includes using secure passwords and applying security upgrades when they're made available. Intelligent use excludes running binaries or scripts supplied by unknown individuals.

If that's too complicated for someone, they shouldn't be using a computer at all. So, are Windows XP or Vista not safe then when used intelligently? IMHO using a microsoft operating system intelligently (is there an oxymoron here?) involves a number of additional restrictions and caveats, as well as extra costs, as compared to using linux intelligently, which is OTOH fairly straightforward.

Joe

I don't think running Windows XP on a desktop securely is rocket science. My parents have pulled off such a feat -- they've never had any security issues, and of the people I know, they are the least computer literate. My brother is now on OS X, but not because of security issues. He just wanted a better computer with a better OS than what his XP-powered Wintel box was.

Your parents are lucky. In Iraq, we had XP machines on a Department of Defence SECURE NETWORK which was completely cut off from the rest of the internet, and they STILL caught viruses.

Maybe securing a desktop Linux system is easier. However, as long as it is not difficult as such on the other side, security is not a selling point. I've talked about security and Linux to Windows users. What they say is: I do not need "better" or "more" security, since security is a non-issue to begin with. If, on the other hand, OpenOffice or MS Office became magically easier to use once run on Linux, then they might become interested.

Money? Well some one who buys a branded PC typically already pays for security apps etc. which bring added costs. Putting Linux on that hardware at home won't make the money they already paid for the Windows OS and Norton etc. stuff to be returned. Windows machines are now so cheap that money seems no longer to be a motivator that would work in favour of "Linux at home." Even computer magazines no longer write about Linux being free. It seems irrelevant. They write about Linux as an equal "choice" on the desktop, and not as something that is geeky yet free. (as they used to.)

We need to break the back of the mandatory bundling of Windows. Personally, I think computers sold retail should be have line-item costs, with Windows as a separate cost from the hardware. It's just like payroll taxes deducted out of the paycheck -- what people don't have to explicitly fork over extra money for, they soon forget (if they were ever aware of it in the first place). -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

On Friday 08 February 2008 07:21, James Knott wrote:

...

There are a lot of fundamental flaws in Windows, that create security risks. One is the way IE is tied into the kernel, so that a user app runs in kernel space.

Do you know this for a fact? If so, how do you know? Where did you learn it? It really is very hard to believe, since it is such a gross violation of the principles of operating system design. I find it hard to believe even Microsoft would commit such a technological travesty for the sake of thwarting a lawsuit or some regulations.

...

Randall Schulz -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

* jdd (jdd@dodin.org) [20080208 16:53]:

fact is many windows applications don't run at all if not used as administrator, and this opens all.

Most do run without elevated privileges and the few I've encountered access resources that require elevated privileges. OK, there are a few stupid apps that for instance want to write their .ini file in the installation directory but for those it helps to just adjust the privileges needed to also write to that file. Like with Linux where I do most of the work as normal user, I also do most work on Windows as non-admin user. And now where's the relevance to this ml's subject? Philipp -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

On Friday 08 February 2008 07:52, jdd wrote:

Randall R Schulz a écrit :

...

even Microsoft would commit such a technological travesty for the sake of thwarting a lawsuit or some regulations.

fact is many windows applications don't run at all if not used as administrator, and this opens all.

Be that as it may, there is a huge difference between running an application (or all applications) with administrative privileges and being a part of the kernel. The former, while something we all know and agree is a bad idea, is not an engineering travesty (it's a security travesty). The latter most certainly is an egregious violation of OS design principles. And while I do think Linux is technologically superior to Windows in very many ways, I don't think MS OS engineers are foolish enough to put application code in the kernel.

...

jdd

Randall Schulz -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

On Friday 08 February 2008 08:40, James Knott wrote:

...

Here's some Wikipedia stuff on it. My impression is that there are a lot of good employees at Microsoft who want to do the right thing, including the engineers, but they get overruled by Bill & Steve, if for competitive advantage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft

The word "kernel" does not even appear on that page. I don't usually like to get in to debates on lexical semantics, but in this case, the claim was that IE was incorporated into the _kernel_, not "the operating system," and this means something specific. Randall Schulz -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

On Friday 08 February 2008 09:05, Dave Howorth wrote:

Randall R Schulz wrote:

...

I don't usually like to get in to debates on lexical semantics,

Please feel free, but please do so on the OT list :)

I don't consider this exchange off-topic. RRS -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

On Friday 08 February 2008 09:57, Aaron Kulkis wrote:

Randall R Schulz wrote:

...

...

Be that as it may, there is a huge difference between running an application (or all applications) with administrative privileges and being a part of the kernel. ...

That's what the whole IE-bundling lawsuit was about.

Microsoft's argument was that they indeed do *ON PURPOSE* AS PART OF THEIR BUSINESS PLAN embed the IE code in the kernel.

When some CS prof demonstrated an IE-less Windows system, MS almost immediately issued an SP bolting IE in so tightly that there would be no repeat performances.

Did they ever disclose the source code that showed IE code in the kernel? If not, why do you believe them when they say it's in the kernel (_if_ they said that)? Making the system inoperable without IE is still far from putting IE in the kernel. There are many ways to do the former. By the way, where can I buy some of these software bolts? I've got some code that keeps coming loose 'cause all I can find is software glue, and apparently it's not impervious to bit rot. Randall Schulz -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

On Friday 08 February 2008 08:30, James Knott wrote:

Randall R Schulz wrote:

...

On Friday 08 February 2008 07:21, James Knott wrote:

...

...

There are a lot of fundamental flaws in Windows, that create security risks. One is the way IE is tied into the kernel, so that a user app runs in kernel space.

Do you know this for a fact? If so, how do you know? Where did you learn it?

It really is very hard to believe, since it is such a gross violation of the principles of operating system design. I find it hard to believe even Microsoft would commit such a technological travesty for the sake of thwarting a lawsuit or some regulations.

I have read about it in a couple of different sources, but don't have any handy at the moment. Read up on Netscape vs MS for the why. And does bad software design from Microsoft surprise you?

Bad design is everywhere, in every discipline. And I do not hold the belief that everything MS does is bad or of poor quality (though Outlook and Exchange are enough to earn them a special place in hell). Nor do I believe all or even most (or even many) of their engineers are unskilled. So yes, this is beyond the pale. No engineer would buy into it. They would have to be dragged kicking and screaming into such a horrible scheme.

There is certainly no technical reason for them to tie IE so closely to the operating system, yet that is precisely what they claimed. ...

Again, "tie closely to the OS" and "tied into the kernel" _are NOT the same thing_! You said IE code is in the kernel. I'm still not ready to believe that.

...

Randall Schulz -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

On Friday 08 February 2008 10:02, Aaron Kulkis wrote:

Randall R Schulz wrote:

...

...

Again, "tie closely to the OS" and "tied into the kernel" _are NOT the same thing_! You said IE code is in the kernel. I'm still not ready to believe that.

How can it be "tied closely to the OS" without being tied into the kernel.

In fact, every bit of software that does not run on a virtual machine is very much tied closely to the OS on which it runs. Only things like device drivers and file system modules are in the kernel (and even they need not be a part of the kernel per se). Randall Schulz -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

On Monday 11 February 2008 08:25:31 am jdd wrote:

Randall R Schulz a écrit :

...

...

How can it be "tied closely to the OS" without being tied into the kernel.

In fact, every bit of software that does not run on a virtual machine is very much tied closely to the OS on which it runs. Only things like device drivers and file system modules are in the kernel (and even they need not be a part of the kernel per se).

Actually, Aaron (or whomever) is correct. Since '99 or so, in both NT and Win98/ME, the kernel handles many aspects of IE. IE6 cannot run in Vista since it has large chunks of code in the ntdll.dll file, which was wholly re-written for Vista. Is there actually code in krnl386.exe? I don't know.

well... What Microsoft said is that the OS is tightly linked to IE, so they can't remove IE :-)

and I've seen a *mouse* driver requiring IE as dependency... (I beg it was for the help system, but who knows :-))

discussion on the lack of security of windows is endless. and vista is funny on this respect. every single operation need to be acnowledged twice by the user, so nobody read the popup anymore, it could be "your are going to die", the user whould clic OK anyway :-))

You can remove that. I have it disabled on both my Vista machines. Go into control panel, do a search for uac and select "Turn User Account Control on or off." It will gripe at you a bit, but the annoying issue will go away. Not as elegant as openSUSe and certainly not ready to be a usable operating system, but this little bit helps. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 jdd schreef: | Kai Ponte a écrit : | |> Not as elegant as openSUSe and certainly not ready to be a usable |> operating |> system, but this little bit helps. | | thanks. I wont spread this info, because this is one of my main argument | in favor of openSUSE :-)))) | | "openSUSE, the security without the hassel" | | jdd | (and I use nearly never this other system, but who can buy a cheap | laptop without paying M$???) | Well, this becomes more and more possible, in the last time, year or so.., but not if you are very picky, and want brandnew hw. In holland new laptops with ubuntu on it are sold... In holland 2 years ago, there was a movement to get refund from M$, if windows would not be used on a laptop... I will find out what happened, i don't know if it bled to death.... - -- Have a nice day, M9. Now, is the only time that exists. ~ OS: Linux 2.6.24-3-default x86_64 ~ Huidige gebruiker: monkey9@AMD64x2-sfn1 ~ Systeem: openSUSE 11.0 (x86_64) Alpha2 ~ KDE: 3.5.8 "release 39" ~ OS: Linux 2.6.22.16-0.2-default x86_64 ~ Huidige gebruiker: monkey9@AMD64x2-sfn1 ~ Systeem: openSUSE 10.3 (x86_64) ~ KDE: 3.5.7 "release 72.6" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4-svn0 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHsJO+X5/X5X6LpDgRAiydAJ0c/+UY+l6jj2jIU+q/9xvvzPYMyACeP3eZ /uRW1wsZfxWNSACNKl/IAyk= =K9+g -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Randall R Schulz wrote:

In fact, every bit of software that does not run on a virtual machine is very much tied closely to the OS on which it runs. Only things like device drivers and file system modules are in the kernel (and even they need not be a part of the kernel per se).

You're talking about the binary, right? After all, lots of software can be built for all kinds of OS'es which would mean they're not really tied to the OS, but once you've only got the binary, then yes, you're tied to an OS that has the right kind of loader etc. etc. /Per Jessen, Zürich -- http://www.spamchek.com/ - your spam is our business. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

James Knott wrote:

Tero Pesonen wrote:

...

On Friday 08 February 2008, Sloan wrote:

...

Tero Pesonen wrote:

...

On Friday 08 February 2008, Randall R Schulz wrote:

...

Linux is safe when used intelligently. Intelligent use includes using secure passwords and applying security upgrades when they're made available. Intelligent use excludes running binaries or scripts supplied by unknown individuals.

If that's too complicated for someone, they shouldn't be using a computer at all.

So, are Windows XP or Vista not safe then when used intelligently?

IMHO using a microsoft operating system intelligently (is there an oxymoron here?) involves a number of additional restrictions and caveats, as well as extra costs, as compared to using linux intelligently, which is OTOH fairly straightforward.

Joe

I don't think running Windows XP on a desktop securely is rocket science. My parents have pulled off such a feat -- they've never had any security issues, and of the people I know, they are the least computer literate. My brother is now on OS X, but not because of security issues. He just wanted a better computer with a better OS than what his XP-powered Wintel box was.

Do they run as admin or user? Do they have any applications that force them to run as admin?

...

Maybe securing a desktop Linux system is easier. However, as long as it is not difficult as such on the other side, security is not a selling point. I've talked about security and Linux to Windows users. What they say is: I do not need "better" or "more" security, since security is a non-issue to begin with. If, on the other hand, OpenOffice or MS Office became magically easier to use once run on Linux, then they might become interested.

There are a lot of fundamental flaws in Windows, that create security risks. One is the way IE is tied into the kernel, so that a user app runs in kernel space. The sole reason for this, was so that Microsoft could force IE bundling, as IE was now part of the OS. This goes completely against good software engineering principles and means that problems with the browser become problems with the OS.

...

That's what I've gathered.

"Security" in Windows comes from patching a sieve.

More specifically, replacing one section of permeable wire mesh with a new section of permeable wire mesh -- BY DESIGN. The many back-doors in Windows are *NOT* accidental.

-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

This is a repost of my response to something which Aaron stated - as an expert on Widows security (amongst other things ) - and which he has apparently chosen to totally ignore because it doesn't suit him. To be kind, however, it could also be a simple matter of him missing reading my message. Anything is possible in this world. What would be very nice, from the expert on Windows, and everything else in the universe, is a response on what I asked in my original post dated 12 February 2008 - today is the 18 February - reposted below. QUOTE Basil Chupin wrote:

Aaron Kulkis wrote:

...

James Knott wrote:

[pruned]

...

...

TI don't think running Windows XP on a desktop securely is rocket science. My parents have pulled off such a feat -- they've never had any security issues, and of the people I know, they are the least computer literate. My brother is now on OS X, but not because of security issues. He just wanted a better computer with a better OS than what his XP-powered Wintel box was.

Do they run as admin or user? Do they have any applications that force them to run as admin?

XP PRO *insists* that someone be an 'assistant Administrator' and the first user who is created after the Admin is assigned Admin rights. The thinking here, it seems to me, is that if the Admin gets run over by a bus then the 'assistant admin' has full access to the OS. That is the way I saw/see it - but I may be wrong.

But being a 'normal' user on XP is really a big pain in the arse because you cannot install any new software, or do some maintenance, unless you have Admin rights. Which is why many home users simply run the OS in Admin user mode - even if they know what this means.

[pruned]

...

...

"Security" in Windows comes from patching a sieve.

More specifically, replacing one section of permeable wire mesh with a new section of permeable wire mesh -- BY DESIGN.

The many back-doors in Windows are *NOT* accidental.

Which brings up a very important question requiring an honest answer.

The matter of Windows having deliberate in-built backdoors has been mooted for quite some time.

A number of Windows applications claiming to be Firewalls which not only prevent INBOUND access into the system also claim to prevent *OUTBOUND* unauthorised access to the Internet by applications.

ZoneAlarm, for example, is one such security applications. (I won't go into the details of who owns, or is associated with the company which actually owns, ZoneAlarm but it may be indirectly relevant to this topic of "back-doors" in Windows.)

How, say, such a well known security firewall application as ZoneAlarm handle the back-door issue which is inbuilt into Windows' applications?

Is ZoneAlarm, and similar, capable of preventing back-door traffic, both inbound and outbound, inbuilt into Windows systems?

About 3 years ago (I have the messages somewhere on file) a person (?programmer) found that ZoneAlarm was "reporting" back to ZA servers about the system they were installed on and ZA, of course, claimed that it was a "coding" glitch; there was a fix (I asked the reporter for "The Inquirer" to publish the 'fix') and the "glitch" was fixed. But, in the real world, what do ZA et alia do to handle the inbuilt back-doors in Windows (put there, I have read, at the request of the American Intelligence Agencies - which is one of the reasons why the Chinese governement won't touch Windows with a 10--foot barge pole. And I am *NOT* trying to introduce politics into this discussion!)

This is not simply a MS related question, and therefore may be considered by some to be OT, but what MS, et alia, is forced to do may also be relevant to what pressures OSs such as openSUSE may be subjected to. Dunno, just asking....

Ciao.

UNQUOTE Hoping for a reply...... Ciao. -- I was very heavily into pornography. Then my pornograph broke. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Kai Ponte schreef: | On Sunday 17 February 2008 09:55:53 pm Basil Chupin wrote: |>> Is ZoneAlarm, and similar, capable of preventing back-door traffic, |>> both inbound and outbound, inbuilt into Windows systems? |>> | | Short answer, no. | | ZA is a very untrustworthy application. I wouldn't touch it with the | proverbial ten foot pole. | | | Of course, a hardware firewall is the best protection against any attack. A | good router should have firewall software built in. | | Second - and often in line with the hardware fireall - would be software. | | I use Outpost on my Wintendo machine at home. | | http://www.agnitum.com/ | | I've heard good reviews (from known derelict types) of Kapersky ( | http://usa.kaspersky.com/products_services/internet-security.php ) and even | LavaSoft ( | http://www.lavasoftusa.com/products/lavasoft_personal_firewall.php ). | | There's no reason ever to go with Zone Alarm, Norton or McAffee. | | | Sorry for the OT post, but I know many of you probably still use Wintendo out | there. | | Sorry to mix in the ongoing conversation, but as i experience time after time, is that if, and i say if you want to use XP and want to benefit from the good sides of it, (there are some good sides), or simply because you are forced to use it, you *have* to keep some external apps present, to keep everything going as smooth as possible, and as fast as possible. You do not have to believe me, but i assure you, you can. These are: 1) A good firewall, which is sygate an old Norton firewall that is *free*, and that warns you and asks you if you grant or denie to let specified traffic in or out. 2) Virusscanner, Avast, which is very good, and also *free*. 3) Adaware&adwatch, from Lavasoft, there are free versions that work ok, the definition file gets updated regularly. 4) Registry Mechanic, which is not free, but not extremely expensive for the job it does, but absolutely nessesary, if you aint got all day before widnose has been started up, to keep your registry free from deleted or unsaved changes, forgotten by XP(ert), and where it is looking for, for hours and hours. RM lets your XP run as a new. Weekly, an XP user has to: 1) Clean the registry, 2) Defragment the drives that change the most, And if the firewall, adwatch, and avast are set properly, nothing is gonna harm you, except the windows updates: you have to check carefull for the genuine advantage 'updates', if you use an unlicensed version. Sygate firewall, lets you choose *all* traffic, from every changed DLL, to every piece of software that wants to acces the internet, our your pc. You can choose to grant only once, or remember decision, grant or denie. You can lock-up all traffic with one click, if nessesary. You can test the safety of your *backdoors* by it if you like. - -- Have a nice day, M9. Now, is the only time that exists. ~ OS: Linux 2.6.22.17-0.1-default x86_64 ~ Huidige gebruiker: monkey9@AMD64x2-sfn1 ~ Systeem: openSUSE 10.3 (x86_64) ~ KDE: 3.5.7 "release 72.6" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4-svn0 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHuVh/X5/X5X6LpDgRAosvAKCS5bVVRk11us62wq+EAPNlzY9vvwCglQTc gy6DQiHyegLq6VJcbZK2Z7k= =ZmNH -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Basil Chupin wrote:

This is a repost of my response to something which Aaron stated - as an expert on Widows security (amongst other things ) - and which he has apparently chosen to totally ignore because it doesn't suit him.

To be kind, however, it could also be a simple matter of him missing reading my message.

Anything is possible in this world.

What would be very nice, from the expert on Windows, and everything else in the universe, is a response on what I asked in my original post dated 12 February 2008 - today is the 18 February - reposted below.

QUOTE

Basil Chupin wrote:

...

Aaron Kulkis wrote:

...

James Knott wrote:

[pruned]

...

...

TI don't think running Windows XP on a desktop securely is rocket science. My parents have pulled off such a feat -- they've never had any security issues, and of the people I know, they are the least computer literate. My brother is now on OS X, but not because of security issues. He just wanted a better computer with a better OS than what his XP-powered Wintel box was.

Do they run as admin or user? Do they have any applications that force them to run as admin?

XP PRO *insists* that someone be an 'assistant Administrator' and the first user who is created after the Admin is assigned Admin rights. The thinking here, it seems to me, is that if the Admin gets run over by a bus then the 'assistant admin' has full access to the OS. That is the way I saw/see it - but I may be wrong.

But being a 'normal' user on XP is really a big pain in the arse because you cannot install any new software, or do some maintenance, unless you have Admin rights. Which is why many home users simply run the OS in Admin user mode - even if they know what this means.

[pruned]

...

...

"Security" in Windows comes from patching a sieve.

More specifically, replacing one section of permeable wire mesh with a new section of permeable wire mesh -- BY DESIGN.

The many back-doors in Windows are *NOT* accidental.

Which brings up a very important question requiring an honest answer.

The matter of Windows having deliberate in-built backdoors has been mooted for quite some time.

A number of Windows applications claiming to be Firewalls which not only prevent INBOUND access into the system also claim to prevent *OUTBOUND* unauthorised access to the Internet by applications.

ZoneAlarm, for example, is one such security applications. (I won't go into the details of who owns, or is associated with the company which actually owns, ZoneAlarm but it may be indirectly relevant to this topic of "back-doors" in Windows.)

How, say, such a well known security firewall application as ZoneAlarm handle the back-door issue which is inbuilt into Windows' applications?

Is ZoneAlarm, and similar, capable of preventing back-door traffic, both inbound and outbound, inbuilt into Windows systems?

About 3 years ago (I have the messages somewhere on file) a person (?programmer) found that ZoneAlarm was "reporting" back to ZA servers about the system they were installed on and ZA, of course, claimed that it was a "coding" glitch; there was a fix (I asked the reporter for "The Inquirer" to publish the 'fix') and the "glitch" was fixed. But, in the real world, what do ZA et alia do to handle the inbuilt back-doors in Windows (put there, I have read, at the request of the American Intelligence Agencies - which is one of the reasons why the Chinese governement won't touch Windows with a 10--foot barge pole. And I am *NOT* trying to introduce politics into this discussion!)

There's your answer right there. There's other ways to get information out of a computer other than well-known TCP/IP ports. My basis for the accusation is simple... Most all of the Windows exploits attack only a couple applications: IE, Outlook, and IIS, and occasionaly Office. One would think that with all the bad press it gets, that MS would direct their people to go over that code with a fine-toothed comb, so to speak, and ELIMINATE THE SECURITY WEAKNESSES. But for some Strrrrrrrrrrrrrrrraaaaaaaaaaaaange reason, these applications have never been secured. I find it incredibly strange that a company with one of the highest revenue streams on the planet, with virtually no costs other than people and publishing costs, is utterly incapable of securing 3 moderately-sized applications. I can come to only 2 mutually-exclusive conclusions : 1. MS is incapable of securing these applications. 2. MS does not want to secure these applications, because doing so would interfere with their business. #1 is laughable. With the amount of money they have, they can get enough people to review and fix these apps so that they're secure. This leaves only option #2. It's not a question of security expertise, it's simply a matter of deductive LOGIC.

...

This is not simply a MS related question, and therefore may be considered by some to be OT, but what MS, et alia, is forced to do may also be relevant to what pressures OSs such as openSUSE may be subjected to. Dunno, just asking....

Ciao.

UNQUOTE

Hoping for a reply......

Ciao.

-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Basil Chupin a écrit :

This is a repost of my response to something which Aaron stated - as an expert on Widows security (amongst other things )

don't you think this thread is long enough? better stop it than restart it. jdd -- http://www.dodin.net -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

On 2/18/08, Patrick Shanahan wrote:

* jdd [02-18-08 03:20]:

...

Basil Chupin a écrit :

...

This is a repost of my response to something which Aaron stated - as an expert on Widows security (amongst other things )

don't you think this thread is long enough? better stop it than restart it.

or move it to "offtopic" where it probably belongs!

Here's the long version of that statement: Splitting offtopic threads to a seperate mailing list is required for a usefull main mailing list, but if it is hard to find the OffTopic mailing list many people will post OT mails in the main mailing list. The OT mailing lists offers political discussions, news and a lot of other things. This mail apeared to have moved from OpenSuse 11 to MS security, and while interresting, it's not Suse related anymore and should be continued on the Offtopic list. The OpenSuse Offtopic list is hard to find. It was not listed in the SuSe mailing lists lats time I checked. Subscription info for the OT SuSe mailing list: To subscribe, e-mail: opensuse-offtopic+subscribe@opensuse.org To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-offtopic+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-offtopic+help@opensuse.org Neil -- There are two kinds of people: 1. People who start their arrays with 1. 1. People who start their arrays with 0. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

On Friday 08 February 2008, James Knott wrote:

Tero Pesonen wrote:

...

On Friday 08 February 2008, Sloan wrote:

...

Tero Pesonen wrote:

...

On Friday 08 February 2008, Randall R Schulz wrote:

...

Linux is safe when used intelligently. Intelligent use includes using secure passwords and applying security upgrades when they're made available. Intelligent use excludes running binaries or scripts supplied by unknown individuals.

If that's too complicated for someone, they shouldn't be using a computer at all.

So, are Windows XP or Vista not safe then when used intelligently?

IMHO using a microsoft operating system intelligently (is there an oxymoron here?) involves a number of additional restrictions and caveats, as well as extra costs, as compared to using linux intelligently, which is OTOH fairly straightforward.

Joe

I don't think running Windows XP on a desktop securely is rocket science. My parents have pulled off such a feat -- they've never had any security issues, and of the people I know, they are the least computer literate. My brother is now on OS X, but not because of security issues. He just wanted a better computer with a better OS than what his XP-powered Wintel box was.

Do they run as admin or user? Do they have any applications that force them to run as admin?

On the standard Windows XP what-ever version, I think everything is run as admin, or with the admin rights.

...

Maybe securing a desktop Linux system is easier. However, as long as it is not difficult as such on the other side, security is not a selling point. I've talked about security and Linux to Windows users. What they say is: I do not need "better" or "more" security, since security is a non-issue to begin with. If, on the other hand, OpenOffice or MS Office became magically easier to use once run on Linux, then they might become interested.

There are a lot of fundamental flaws in Windows, that create security risks. One is the way IE is tied into the kernel, so that a user app runs in kernel space. The sole reason for this, was so that Microsoft could force IE bundling, as IE was now part of the OS. This goes completely against good software engineering principles and means that problems with the browser become problems with the OS.

Certainly. I guess that has something to do with why Firefox has >45% market share here in Finland. Even CERT-FI (Finnish National Computer Emergency Response Team) has guided all businesses and home users to look for alternatives to IE on Windows. I don't know what's their stance on the newer IE version. (7 or 8 or something like that)

...

That's what I've gathered.

"Security" in Windows comes from patching a sieve.

Sure. But I still won't let my Linux box run unpatched either. Or OS X, if I were running that. Tero Pesonen -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

On Friday 08 February 2008, Sloan wrote:

Tero Pesonen wrote:

...

I don't think running Windows XP on a desktop securely is rocket science. My parents have pulled off such a feat -- they've never had any security issues, and of the people I know, they are the least computer literate.

I do hear that a lot from windows users. On the other hand, enterprising black hats rent out compromised microsoft boxes by the millions for sending out spam, or doing coordinated DOS attacks - and yet the owners of those compromised microsoft boxes will claim they've never had any security issues.

And they're also the people who've never actually thought of security in the first place. No, security won't come automatically. You need a driver's license for driving a car on public roads. You do not need any kind license for connecting a PC box to the "public" net. That's where it really comes down to. Tero Pesonen -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Tero Pesonen wrote:

On Friday 08 February 2008, Randall R Schulz wrote:

...

On Thursday 07 February 2008 14:07, Wolfgang Woehl wrote:

...

If that's too complicated for someone, they shouldn't be using a computer at all.

So, are Windows XP or Vista not safe then when used intelligently?

YES. They are NOT SAFE even when used intelligently.

--Tero Pesonen

-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

James Knott wrote:

Tero Pesonen wrote:

...

...

If that's too complicated for someone, they shouldn't be using a computer at all.

So, are Windows XP or Vista not safe then when used intelligently?

--Tero Pesonen

There are a number of flaws in the basic design of Windows that makes it more difficult to secure. One was a result of the "browser wars". When Netscape sued Microsoft for forced bundling of IE, Microsoft claim that IE couldn't be removed because it was part of the OS. At that time, it was simply another app, like Netscape. However, with the next Windows version, IE was deeply embedded in the kernel, using many common files etc. The result of this, was a security breech in IE became a breech in the kernel. There are many other examples, from the technical perspective about why Windows is inherently less secure. Ever notice how many Windows apps require a user to run with admin rights?

If you are using the Home Edition you have no other choice except to run it with Administrator rights. Ciao. -- Past experience, if not forgotten, is a guide for the future. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

James Knott wrote:

Basil Chupin wrote:

...

James Knott wrote:

...

Tero Pesonen wrote:

...

...

If that's too complicated for someone, they shouldn't be using a computer at all.

So, are Windows XP or Vista not safe then when used intelligently?

--Tero Pesonen

There are a number of flaws in the basic design of Windows that makes it more difficult to secure. One was a result of the "browser wars". When Netscape sued Microsoft for forced bundling of IE, Microsoft claim that IE couldn't be removed because it was part of the OS. At that time, it was simply another app, like Netscape. However, with the next Windows version, IE was deeply embedded in the kernel, using many common files etc. The result of this, was a security breech in IE became a breech in the kernel. There are many other examples, from the technical perspective about why Windows is inherently less secure. Ever notice how many Windows apps require a user to run with admin rights?

If you are using the Home Edition you have no other choice except to run it with Administrator rights.

Is there no way to add another user? I try to convince my friends to create a user account, separate from the admin. It sounds like another security bomb is about to go off.

I quote from a book I have on the XP: QUOTE Windows XP Home edition bestows Administrator rights on anyone who logs into the computer, giving full control to all system resources - this is not a satisfactory security model for business and power users. UNQUOTE. Answer your question? :-) Ciao. -- Past experience, if not forgotten, is a guide for the future. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

James Knott wrote:

Basil Chupin wrote:

...

James Knott wrote:

...

Is there no way to add another user? I try to convince my friends to create a user account, separate from the admin. It sounds like another security bomb is about to go off.

I quote from a book I have on the XP:

QUOTE

Windows XP Home edition bestows Administrator rights on anyone who logs into the computer, giving full control to all system resources - this is not a satisfactory security model for business and power users.

UNQUOTE.

Answer your question? :-)

My question was about Vista.

Sorry, must have missed this along the way - didn't see any reference to Vista, the discussion I thought was all about XP.

My ThinkPad came with XP Home and I have both Admin and user accounts on it. User accounts in XP Home do not have admin rights. However, most people never get past that first account, which does have admin rights.

A friend is using the Home edition and I haven't "played" with it (because I didn't want to get tangled up with Home edition :-) ) so cannot comment for or against that you have both Admin and user accounts on it. All I know is what I heard, and read (and quoted above) about the Home edition of XP. Of course, it is in XP Professional that most people who use it at home who never get past the first account - the Administrator - and do not create a user with limited access rights. The need to create a normal, limited access, user in XP Professional is not something which is enforced in Professional which is why, I understand, most XP Prof. setups are being run by a home user with full Admin. rights. I cannot see why the Home edition should be more security conscious than the Professional edition, and also cost much less, unless SP1 and SP2 introduced the ability to create limited-access users in the Home edition. Ciao. -- Past experience, if not forgotten, is a guide for the future. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

James Knott wrote:

Basil Chupin wrote:

...

The need to create a normal, limited access, user in XP Professional is not something which is enforced in Professional which is why, I understand, most XP Prof. setups are being run by a home user with full Admin. rights. I cannot see why the Home edition should be more security conscious than the Professional edition, and also cost much less, unless SP1 and SP2 introduced the ability to create limited-access users in the Home edition.

I believe both versions work the same. The first account has admin rights and many people don't go beyond that to create users with restricted rights. They simply don't realize the difference between admin and user.

Which is caused by Microsoft not making the default name something like "admin", and prompting the user to come up with their own name for the "first account" which the uninformed person is, more often than not, going to name after themselves, as a personal account (because MS doesn't tell them that it's NOT a personal account). -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

On Friday 08 February 2008 23:50, Basil Chupin wrote:

Of course, it is in XP Professional that most people who use it at home who never get past the first account - the Administrator - and do not create a user with limited access rights.

The need to create a normal, limited access, user in XP Professional is not something which is enforced in Professional which is why, I understand, most XP Prof. setups are being run by a home user with full Admin. rights. I cannot see why the Home edition should be more security conscious than the Professional edition, and also cost much less, unless SP1 and SP2 introduced the ability to create limited-access users in the Home edition.

Ciao.

I have XP Pro at home. How do I access the Administrator account, so that I can unzip some files that have been sent to me? AFAIR, the install did not ask me for a password, so I don't have one--that I know of. What an idiot system! --dm Blessed are the peacemakers ... for they shall be shot at from both sides. --A.M. Greeley -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Doug McGarrett wrote:

On Friday 08 February 2008 23:50, Basil Chupin wrote:

...

Of course, it is in XP Professional that most people who use it at home who never get past the first account - the Administrator - and do not create a user with limited access rights.

The need to create a normal, limited access, user in XP Professional is not something which is enforced in Professional which is why, I understand, most XP Prof. setups are being run by a home user with full Admin. rights. I cannot see why the Home edition should be more security conscious than the Professional edition, and also cost much less, unless SP1 and SP2 introduced the ability to create limited-access users in the Home edition.

Ciao.

I have XP Pro at home. How do I access the Administrator account, so that I can unzip some files that have been sent to me? AFAIR, the install did not ask me for a password, so I don't have one--that I know of. What an idiot system!

See my response in opensuse offtopic under Subject XP Pro/Home Edition. Ciao -- If you want to know what a man is like, take a look at how he treats his inferiors not his equals. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Rajko M. wrote:

On Friday 08 February 2008 05:50:33 pm Basil Chupin wrote:

...

James Knott wrote:

...

Basil Chupin wrote:

....

...

...

...

If you are using the Home Edition you have no other choice except to run it with Administrator rights.

Is there no way to add another user? I try to convince my friends to create a user account, separate from the admin. It sounds like another security bomb is about to go off.

I quote from a book I have on the XP:

QUOTE

Windows XP Home edition bestows Administrator rights on anyone who logs into the computer, giving full control to all system resources - this is not a satisfactory security model for business and power users.

UNQUOTE.

Answer your question? :-)

The book and practice seems to be out of phase :-)

It is simple to create new user(s).

Nowhere have I said anything about not being able to create new users. All the above quote is stating is, "....bestows Administrative rights on *anyone* [my emphasis] who logs into the computer,....".

They are by default administrators (well, elevated rights), so that has to be fixed manually.

What you write is, of course, all very exciting - except that for the Joe-in-the-street who buys a copy of the Home edition (AND Professional, BTW) will not have a damn clue that you need to use the OS as a user with NO Administrator privileges. Which is why openSUSE was created. Ciao. -- Past experience, if not forgotten, is a guide for the future. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

On Friday 08 February 2008 17:31, G T Smith wrote:

J Windows NT as originally designed was secure but a combination of inputs from the sales team and the application group compromised what was a reasonably secure design extremely badly. (Essentially Microsoft bought the VMS design team from Digital, and NT originally owed a lot to VMS). The windows 9x/98/Me code stream was really Windows(4?)/MSDOS 7 with the GUI as a compulsory option.

According to several folks, including IBM, Windows NT (new Technology) was a rebrand of OS/2 v3.0 when IBM and Microsoft parted ways. One link is http://www.os2bbs.com/os2news/OS2History.html . I have a feeling that somewhere along the line, someone decided to combine VMS and OS/2 and see what happened. For years, all the incarnations of NT from 3.5 to 2000 had a directory under system called os2. I'd have to look at work, but I think the only file in that directory is os2.dll. I once deleted it just for fun, and the system ground to a halt. But I think that was NT4, and has since been fixed. Mike -- Powered by SuSE 10.0 Kernel 2.6.13 X86_64 KDE 3.4 Kmail 1.8 5:49pm up 176 days 22:22, 5 users, load average: 2.20, 2.19, 2.18 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

On Friday 08 February 2008 18:11, James Knott wrote:

Mike wrote:

...

On Friday 08 February 2008 17:31, G T Smith wrote:

...

J Windows NT as originally designed was secure but a combination of inputs from the sales team and the application group compromised what was a reasonably secure design extremely badly. (Essentially Microsoft bought the VMS design team from Digital, and NT originally owed a lot to VMS). The windows 9x/98/Me code stream was really Windows(4?)/MSDOS 7 with the GUI as a compulsory option.

According to several folks, including IBM, Windows NT (new Technology) was a rebrand of OS/2 v3.0 when IBM and Microsoft parted ways. One link is http://www.os2bbs.com/os2news/OS2History.html . I have a feeling that somewhere along the line, someone decided to combine VMS and OS/2 and see what happened.

For years, all the incarnations of NT from 3.5 to 2000 had a directory under system called os2. I'd have to look at work, but I think the only file in that directory is os2.dll. I once deleted it just for fun, and the system ground to a halt. But I think that was NT4, and has since been fixed.

Mike

Back in those days, NT etc. had an OS/2 subsystem, which could be used to run text mode 16 bit OS/2 apps. I even tried HyperAccess on it and while it would run, it did so poorly. NT had it, XP doesn't and I'm not sure about W2000.

I know it's on 2000, and just looked at XP which doesn't like you said. I guess they finally figured out how to write code to replace it. I remember running Win3.x programs on OS/2 and always having to update the .dll's after M$ changed the API. I did some further reading, and VMS is in there somewhere. The guy that M$ hired was from VMS and didn't think too much of OS/2. One thing I've noticed is that when there is an NTFS partition to be mounted, I see it as hpfs/ntfs. I liked hpfs because it worked. I don't remember defgragging it. But once M$ started screwing with it, you had to do it. Not as often as FAT, but it still needs to be done. Either way, it's still a crappy OS. BSOD is the screen of the day. When it goes, it goes quickly. Mike -- Powered by SuSE 10.0 Kernel 2.6.13 X86_64 KDE 3.4 Kmail 1.8 6:13pm up 176 days 22:45, 5 users, load average: 2.07, 2.14, 2.15 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

On Friday 08 February 2008 18:36, James Knott wrote:

...

I know it's on 2000, and just looked at XP which doesn't like you said. I guess they finally figured out how to write code to replace it. I remember running Win3.x programs on OS/2 and always having to update the .dll's after M$ changed the API. I did some further reading, and VMS is in there somewhere. The guy that M$ hired was from VMS and didn't think too much of OS/2.

Those changing .DLL's were attempts by MS to prevent apps from running on OS/2 and in many cases also caused problems for Windows users, when one app was expecting an older DLL, only to find it had been replaced by a newer one.

Yep.. I remember it well. I started saving them, and when I new one came out, I'd put it in the directory with the app.

...

One thing I've noticed is that when there is an NTFS partition to be mounted, I see it as hpfs/ntfs. I liked hpfs because it worked. I don't remember defgragging it. But once M$ started screwing with it, you had to do it. Not as often as FAT, but it still needs to be done.

I suspect that sector ID number was intentional, to cause confusion.

Of course.. Isn't that their prime objective? Deceit and confusion?

...

Either way, it's still a crappy OS. BSOD is the screen of the day. When it goes, it goes quickly.

My work computer (XP) never does anything quickly. It takes five minutes from log in to almost usable desktop.

You're lucky. You've got XP. My work computer is still 2000. And slow is an understatement. Log in, go and get coffee, come back and watch it finish. And the coffee pot is at the other end of the building.. ;-) Mike -- Powered by SuSE 10.0 Kernel 2.6.13 X86_64 KDE 3.4 Kmail 1.8 6:52pm up 176 days 23:24, 5 users, load average: 2.04, 2.08, 2.12 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 James Knott schreef: | Mike wrote: |> You're lucky. You've got XP. My work computer is still 2000. And slow is |> an understatement. Log in, go and get coffee, come back and watch it |> finish. And the coffee pot is at the other end of the building.. ;-) |> |> | | I boot mine, go get a coffee and then on return, enter password. I then | enjoy coffee and sometimes cookies & read the paper while waiting for | the desktop. | | ~ See? Better not make it quicker than.. ;-) - -- Have a nice day, M9. Now, is the only time that exists. ~ OS: Linux 2.6.24-3-default x86_64 ~ Huidige gebruiker: monkey9@AMD64x2-sfn1 ~ Systeem: openSUSE 11.0 (x86_64) Alpha2 ~ KDE: 3.5.8 "release 39" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.8 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkesnwQACgkQX5/X5X6LpDgWEQCdH+eZvkjdFO143h0GfKCciX5h o4UAn1smrYA+0puyc+ts4hemXdm95uot =9HdR -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

On Friday 08 February 2008 19:26, M9. wrote:

When i used XP, i was sceptic at the beginning, but when i tried it, it found about 386 mistakes at first run, and after repairing them, XP ran as new. Here there are 4 XP boxes around, on which i weekly repair the registry and defragment the most used drives to keep them running at an exeptable speed. Might not be a bad idea to try that, exept if you want to start the day 'at ease'...ofcourse.. As i remember correctly, the apps work on W2K also... (I am not advertising for the adversary, but try helping to make that system less anoying to use..)

true.. But when the work computer belongs to the government, they frown on bring in anything that might make your job easier. They even block the use of Firefox with something from Mcafee. But the funny part of it is that it's based solely on the name of the executable. Rename it, and it works fine.. ;-) Mike -- Powered by SuSE 10.0 Kernel 2.6.13 X86_64 KDE 3.4 Kmail 1.8 7:26pm up 176 days 23:59, 5 users, load average: 2.14, 2.22, 2.19 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 M9. wrote:

Mike schreef:

| G T Smith also, i thought, wrote this:

Not me guv honest! Have not booted into the XP side of my machine for the last 6 weeks (and that was an accident!). :-)

|> My work computer (XP) never does anything quickly. It takes five |> minutes from log in to almost usable desktop. | | You're lucky. You've got XP. My work computer is still 2000. And slow is | an understatement. Log in, go and get coffee, come back and watch it | finish. And the coffee pot is at the other end of the building.. ;-) | | Mike | |

<snip> On the rare occasions I do start XP its the raft of background stuff loading on the machine which causes the main problem......

- -- ============================================================================== I have always wished that my computer would be as easy to use as my telephone. My wish has come true. I no longer know how to use my telephone. Bjarne Stroustrup ============================================================================== -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHrNvyasN0sSnLmgIRAr2PAKDifiM4zUoOx8Zm/72d05InxR0zFgCfYn9v r9o2PJxfo2NMXkpXsGpHbHg= =afL8 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

On Friday 08 February 2008 18:34, G T Smith wrote:

...

For years, all the incarnations of NT from 3.5 to 2000 had a directory under system called os2. I'd have to look at work, but I think the only file in that directory is os2.dll. I once deleted it just for fun, and the system ground to a halt. But I think that was NT4, and has since been fixed.

Mike

I remember OS/2 as a bit of a cripple when it first came out, (I was tasked with writing a GUI graphics editor to edit greysale photographic images which proved to be a little difficult as the colour support API basically was not implemented when it was first released).

I didn't get to work with it until the 3.0 days. I'd been fighting with Win3.x and was so mad because it wouldn't multi-task. Well, it would, but if one program crashed it took out the entire thing. Once I started with OS/2 I could run a lot of programs at once and not worry about crashes.

However this link is a bit interesting on OS history...

http://www.oshistory.net/metadot/index.pl

From this it appears that NT 3.1 was an amalgam of VMS 5.4, Windows 3.0 and OS/2 2.1.1 SE

Well, there ya go. ;-) They probably took the worst of all three and put it together. I never ran the first incantation of NT, but did have the "privilege" of running NT 3.51. It would run for a while, and then die. About the only one I've used that's stable is 2000.

Oddly SuSE appears not to have a history according to the Linux section

Hmm. Interesting. I know that it started out from what I've heard as a derivative of Slackware. But I didn't start with it until 5.3 back in 1998. Mike -- Powered by SuSE 10.0 Kernel 2.6.13 X86_64 KDE 3.4 Kmail 1.8 6:40pm up 176 days 23:12, 5 users, load average: 2.09, 2.14, 2.15 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

On Friday 08 February 2008 08:55:22 am Mike wrote:

On Friday 08 February 2008 17:31, G T Smith wrote:

...

J Windows NT as originally designed was secure but a combination of inputs from the sales team and the application group compromised what was a reasonably secure design extremely badly. (Essentially Microsoft bought the VMS design team from Digital, and NT originally owed a lot to VMS). The windows 9x/98/Me code stream was really Windows(4?)/MSDOS 7 with the GUI as a compulsory option.

According to several folks, including IBM, Windows NT (new Technology) was a rebrand of OS/2 v3.0 when IBM and Microsoft parted ways. One link is http://www.os2bbs.com/os2news/OS2History.html . I have a feeling that somewhere along the line, someone decided to combine VMS and OS/2 and see what happened.

They didn't actually combine VMS, just used the main developer. For that, they paid royally later and ended up supporting DEC Alpha machines for many years. I had several customers running Alpha machines with WinNT on board.

For years, all the incarnations of NT from 3.5 to 2000 had a directory under system called os2. I'd have to look at work, but I think the only file in that directory is os2.dll. I once deleted it just for fun, and the system ground to a halt. But I think that was NT4, and has since been fixed.

this is way off topic, but... OS/2 was a Joint IBM/Microsoft effort to develop a true 32-bit operating system. Microsoft was shut out of GUI development when Jobs was asked to leave Apple, and the new management refused to share GUI code with Microsoft. Windows was being developed but was a long way off and only a 16-bit shell over DOS. If you ever find a copy of OS/2 1.3 (I have one.) You'll see that it looks remarkably like Windows NT 3.5. The about screen says 1988 Microsoft / 1988 IBM. AFAIK, Microsoft was more interested in providing a desktop OS, while IBM still felt the desktop was a non-starter and wanted to make OS/2 more mainframe-centric. Hence, the two companies agreed to disagree and parted ways. Microsoft announced NT ("A better Unix than Unix.") at the '92 or '93 (I forget) CES show after taking notes about what Sun was already doing with its operating system. In any case, the resulting NT had to support multiple subsystems. In fact Win32 is just one subsystem. OS2 is another. (DOS and 16-bit apps run in a Virtual DOS Machine.) On all versions of NT though XP, you can run native OS2 16-bit command line and non-gui apps by calling the OS2 subsystem. (All UI is passed through the subsystems before being handed off to the kernel.) i believe they finally got rid of this in NT 6.0 (aka Vista), since I don't see an OS2.dll file anywhere. Sorry for the off-topic post (I know I'll hear it from Patrick.) but I thought y'all would be interested. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

G T Smith wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1

Kai Ponte wrote:

...

On Friday 08 February 2008 08:55:22 am Mike wrote:

...

On Friday 08 February 2008 17:31, G T Smith wrote:

...

J

<snip>

...

They didn't actually combine VMS, just used the main developer. For that, they paid royally later and ended up supporting DEC Alpha machines for many years. I had several customers running Alpha machines with WinNT on board.

Curious, at lot of the naming internals in NT3/NT4 were very close to those in VAX/VMS ....

There was no NT-3 Windows 3.x consisted of Windows 3.1, Windows for Workgroups (3.11), and Windows 95 and 98 (aka Windows 32x) Windows NT is Windows 4.0 Windows 2000 is Windows 5.0 Windows XP is Windows 6.0 Windows Vista is Windows 7.0 That was the influence of Dave Cutler, who was hired from DEC. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

James Knott wrote:

Aaron Kulkis wrote:

...

G T Smith wrote:

...

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1

Kai Ponte wrote:

...

On Friday 08 February 2008 08:55:22 am Mike wrote:

...

On Friday 08 February 2008 17:31, G T Smith wrote:

...

J <snip>

...

They didn't actually combine VMS, just used the main developer. For that, they paid royally later and ended up supporting DEC Alpha machines for many years. I had several customers running Alpha machines with WinNT on board.

Curious, at lot of the naming internals in NT3/NT4 were very close to those in VAX/VMS ....

There was no NT-3 Windows 3.x consisted of Windows 3.1, Windows for Workgroups (3.11), and Windows 95 and 98 (aka Windows 32x)

Windows NT is Windows 4.0

Windows 2000 is Windows 5.0

Windows XP is Windows 6.0

Windows Vista is Windows 7.0

That was the influence of Dave Cutler, who was hired from DEC.

What happened to Windows NT 3.1 & 3.5?

The first version of NT was Windows 4.0. For Windows 3.5, see the line Windows 3.x -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Aaron Kulkis wrote:

James Knott wrote:

...

Aaron Kulkis wrote:

...

G T Smith wrote:

...

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1

Kai Ponte wrote:

...

On Friday 08 February 2008 08:55:22 am Mike wrote:

...

On Friday 08 February 2008 17:31, G T Smith wrote: > J <snip>

...

They didn't actually combine VMS, just used the main developer. For that, they paid royally later and ended up supporting DEC Alpha machines for many years. I had several customers running Alpha machines with WinNT on board.

Curious, at lot of the naming internals in NT3/NT4 were very close to those in VAX/VMS ....

There was no NT-3 Windows 3.x consisted of Windows 3.1, Windows for Workgroups (3.11), and Windows 95 and 98 (aka Windows 32x)

Windows NT is Windows 4.0

Windows 2000 is Windows 5.0

Windows XP is Windows 6.0

Windows Vista is Windows 7.0

That was the influence of Dave Cutler, who was hired from DEC.

What happened to Windows NT 3.1 & 3.5?

The first version of NT was Windows 4.0.

For Windows 3.5, see the line Windows 3.x

We must live in a different universe. Windows NT 3.x had a similar desktop to Windows 3.1 and NT 4 had a desktop similar to Windows 95. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_NT http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_NT_3.5 -- Use OpenOffice.org http://www.openoffice.org -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

On Friday 08 February 2008 07:13:31 pm Aaron Kulkis wrote:

...

Curious, at lot of the naming internals in NT3/NT4 were very close to those in VAX/VMS ....

There was no NT-3

Hold on... There was an NT 3.1, which was the first "version" of NT. They wanted it to match the version number of Windows. I had a copy of this on six (IIRC) 5.25" floppies and it ran like a dog on my DX/25.

Windows 3.x consisted of Windows 3.1, Windows for Workgroups (3.11), and Windows 95 and 98 (aka Windows 32x)

Not quite. Windows 3.1 and 3.11 were shell programs running over DOS. Win95/98/Me were shell extensions running integrated with DOS and took over. But in general, you're correct on the Windows 3.x line.

Windows NT is Windows 4.0

"Windows 4.0" was never released. It became Windows 95. Windows NT 4.0 was released as NT 4.0 (1996).

Windows 2000 is Windows 5.0

This was NT 5.0, released in '99. There never was a "Windows 5.0", per se. The distinction is necessary, as the "Windows" and the "NT" lines hadn't merged yet.

Windows XP is Windows 6.0

Nope - 5.1. 5.1.2600, to be exact. This was where the NT line and the DOS/Win line merged. There really wasn't much to XP (prior to SP2) that made it more than a point increase from Win2k, other than the dumbing down of the interface and the goofy UI. It is also the reason I eventually ended up running openSUSE on my laptops and desktops. At this time, I realized Windows was not going to allow for users to run in anything but administrator mode without some serious tweaking and work. I began with Mandrake and eventually moved up to SUSE 9.1 right about this time. I haven't looked back once.

Windows Vista is Windows 7.0

Actually, it is listed as "Microsoft Windows [Version 6.0.6000]" I don't mean to come off as nit-picky, but it bears correct understanding to see where Microshaft has tried to take the computer users of the world. It also allows us Linux users to see where openSUSE should and (maybe) should not go in the future. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Wolfgang Woehl wrote:

"I'm a linux user, I click on anything i feel like" sounds intelligent to you? Get out of here :)

I'm not overly concerned with sounding intelligent, but do please provide a link that you have think would be dangerous for me, as a linux user, to click on. Please. If you can come up with anything meaningful, anything at all, I'll bow to your superior knowledge.

In that light it leaves me baffled though that people keep on downsizing this huge effort by saying "It's safe anyway".

I think you're creating a false "straw man" position and then attacking the straw man. Nobody has said "it's safe anyway", but they are saying "it's safer because..." Joe -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Wolfgang Woehl wrote:

Sloan, I was referring to an attitude that is potentially dangerous. Not to current incidents, allright? Did you actually read this thread?

Naturally I've been reading it. I've also commented on it, as a long time unix admin and desktop linux user. Regards, Joe -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Wolfgang Woehl wrote:

Freitag, 8. Februar 2008 Sloan:

...

...

"I'm a linux user, I click on anything i feel like" sounds intelligent to you? Get out of here :) I'm not overly concerned with sounding intelligent, but do please

Wolfgang Woehl wrote: provide a link that you have think would be dangerous for me, as a linux user, to click on. Please.

Sloan, I was referring to an attitude that is potentially dangerous. Not to current incidents, allright? Did you actually read this thread?

Do you actually understand how silly you sound to anyone who actually understands the Unix and Linux security model.

Wolfgang

-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

On Monday 11 February 2008 12:47, Wolfgang Woehl wrote:

... Maybe try and not get phished in the meantime ...

The success of phishing scams requires extreme gullibility of the victim.

Wolfgang

Randall Schulz -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Basil Chupin wrote:

Wolfgang Woehl wrote:

...

Freitag, 8. Februar 2008 Aaron Kulkis:

...

Do you actually understand how silly you sound to anyone who actually understands the Unix and Linux security model.

Hi Aaron, just a short follow-up: see http://nvd.nist.gov/nvd.cfm for stuff about Mozilla Firefox before 2.0.0.12.

opensuse and you and me have 2.0.0.10. Ok, update rule. opensuse will catch up, probably within days, and everything is fine again. There's a gap though. Maybe try and not get phished in the meantime, Aaron?

Which is why I never use FF or TB as provided in openSUSE but always install the ones directly from Mozilla.

I use suse packages whenever available, but out of curiosity, how does installing an unmanaged tarball help? Joe -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Joe Sloan wrote:

Basil Chupin wrote:

...

Wolfgang Woehl wrote:

...

Freitag, 8. Februar 2008 Aaron Kulkis:

...

Do you actually understand how silly you sound to anyone who actually understands the Unix and Linux security model.

Hi Aaron, just a short follow-up: see http://nvd.nist.gov/nvd.cfm for stuff about Mozilla Firefox before 2.0.0.12.

opensuse and you and me have 2.0.0.10. Ok, update rule. opensuse will catch up, probably within days, and everything is fine again. There's a gap though. Maybe try and not get phished in the meantime, Aaron?

Which is why I never use FF or TB as provided in openSUSE but always install the ones directly from Mozilla.

I use suse packages whenever available, but out of curiosity, how does installing an unmanaged tarball help?

I just download and ungzip/untar in /local, run the installer script and install in /opt. I really don't give a hoot about the browser RPM's, other than having something to go to the Mozilla website to IMMEDIATELY download the latest release. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Sloan a écrit :

I'm curious why you use suse - wouldn't LFS or Rock Linux be more to your liking?

some big apps like mozilla and co and openoffice don't have anybenefit from openSUSE, but most of the other utilities do. I like to live borderline on _some_, very limited corners only :-) jdd -- http://www.dodin.net -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Joe Sloan wrote:

Basil Chupin wrote:

...

Wolfgang Woehl wrote:

...

Freitag, 8. Februar 2008 Aaron Kulkis:

...

Do you actually understand how silly you sound to anyone who actually understands the Unix and Linux security model.

Hi Aaron, just a short follow-up: see http://nvd.nist.gov/nvd.cfm for stuff about Mozilla Firefox before 2.0.0.12.

opensuse and you and me have 2.0.0.10. Ok, update rule. opensuse will catch up, probably within days, and everything is fine again. There's a gap though. Maybe try and not get phished in the meantime, Aaron?

Which is why I never use FF or TB as provided in openSUSE but always install the ones directly from Mozilla.

I use suse packages whenever available, but out of curiosity, how does installing an unmanaged tarball help?

I don't understand what you mean by "unmanaged"? If you mean that there is no Suse around to hold your hand in keeping the FF installation going then you need not worry! FF updates itself when Mozilla releases a new upgrade/update/whatever you want to call it. Also, any addons auto-date as well. Ciao. -- If you want to know what a man is like, take a look at how he treats his inferiors not his equals. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Patrick Shanahan wrote:

* Basil Chupin [02-11-08 22:49]:

...

I don't understand what you mean by "unmanaged"?

If you mean that there is no Suse around to hold your hand in keeping the FF installation going then you need not worry! FF updates itself when Mozilla releases a new upgrade/update/whatever you want to call it. Also, any addons auto-date as well.

But doesn't include the enhancements provided by the openSUSE packagers :^(

OK, I'll bite! What 'enhancements' are provided by openSUSE? (I can see your tongue-in-cheek :-) .) Ciao. -- If you want to know what a man is like, take a look at how he treats his inferiors not his equals. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Kai Ponte wrote:

On Monday 11 February 2008 08:59:05 pm Basil Chupin wrote:

...

Patrick Shanahan wrote:

...

* Basil Chupin [02-11-08 22:49]:

...

I don't understand what you mean by "unmanaged"?

If you mean that there is no Suse around to hold your hand in keeping the FF installation going then you need not worry! FF updates itself when Mozilla releases a new upgrade/update/whatever you want to call it. Also, any addons auto-date as well.

But doesn't include the enhancements provided by the openSUSE packagers :^(

OK, I'll bite!

What 'enhancements' are provided by openSUSE?

(I can see your tongue-in-cheek :-) .)

Stupid question - but...

I absolutely resent your statement. What I have no time for are smart-arses who consider themselves to be in the category you consider yourself to be.

..if you wanted to roll your own version of software_x, and still have it in the package management system, then couldn't one compile said software and then use checkinstall to create an RPM?

Then if an update comes out wouldn't that then work nice with the<insert distro here> package management system?

You aren't reading what has been stated in this thread, have you? Jesus, talk about arseholes...... Sorry, Kai but until now I did have respect for you about what you stated in this forum. -- If you want to know what a man is like, take a look at how he treats his inferiors not his equals. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Basil Chupin wrote:

Kai Ponte wrote:

...

On Monday 11 February 2008 08:59:05 pm Basil Chupin wrote:

...

...

OK, I'll bite!

What 'enhancements' are provided by openSUSE?

(I can see your tongue-in-cheek :-) .)

Stupid question - but...

..if you wanted to roll your own version of software_x, and still have it in the package management system, then couldn't one compile said software and then use checkinstall to create an RPM?

Then if an update comes out wouldn't that then work nice with the<insert> distro here> package management system?

Aaargh!

Kai, my sincere apologies for my earlier response.

I misread what you wrote and took it the wrong way.

Again, my sincere apologies.

Yes, I guess what you stated in your response is correct. One could roll an RPM from a tarball from Mozilla.org and install it.

Only difference is that the tarball would need to be somehow altered to make it install in the default location where openSUSE normally installs FF.

I always simply untar the tarball and "install" (ie, replace the /mozilla directory ) FF in my home directory - because I am the only user of my system. What one would need to do to have it available for multiple users of the OS I cannot say.

The proper place is /usr/local or /opt -- just in case you allow other users on your system, or eventually get a job doing administration/systems engineering, then you're already in the habit of putting stuff in the right place. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Kai Ponte wrote:

On Tuesday 12 February 2008 01:50:41 am Basil Chupin wrote:

...

Kai Ponte wrote:

...

On Monday 11 February 2008 08:59:05 pm Basil Chupin wrote:

...

Patrick Shanahan wrote:

...

* Basil Chupin [02-11-08 22:49]:

...

I don't understand what you mean by "unmanaged"?

If you mean that there is no Suse around to hold your hand in keeping the FF installation going then you need not worry! FF updates itself when Mozilla releases a new upgrade/update/whatever you want to call it. Also, any addons auto-date as well.

But doesn't include the enhancements provided by the openSUSE packagers :^(

OK, I'll bite!

What 'enhancements' are provided by openSUSE?

(I can see your tongue-in-cheek :-) .)

Stupid question - but...

..if you wanted to roll your own version of software_x, and still have it in the package management system, then couldn't one compile said software and then use checkinstall to create an RPM?

Then if an update comes out wouldn't that then work nice with the<insert distro here> package management system?

Aaargh!

Kai, my sincere apologies for my earlier response.

I misread what you wrote and took it the wrong way.

Again, my sincere apologies.

LOL!

I've been on usenet (and the interweb in general) long enough to see how questions can be misinterpreted. No problems.

Thanks :-) .

...

Yes, I guess what you stated in your response is correct. One could roll an RPM from a tarball from Mozilla.org and install it.

Only difference is that the tarball would need to be somehow altered to make it install in the default location where openSUSE normally installs FF.

Ok, valid point.<Insert Distro Here> may install to a different location than would the software's original owner.

...

I always simply untar the tarball and "install" (ie, replace the /mozilla directory ) FF in my home directory - because I am the only user of my system. What one would need to do to have it available for multiple users of the OS I cannot say.

There is an error in what I stated above. I replace the /firefox, not /mozilla, directory it toto. I usually copy both /.mozilla and /firefox directories first to the second HD as backup; then delete the ff dir in home and move the /firefox directory created by the un-tar-ring process across.

Oh, that's a cool idea. I had done this when FF 2.0beta was out so I could run 1.x supplied from openSUSE and 2.x from the beta without them interfering.

Cool idea.

I think maybe I'll look into this.

I've been doing this now for years as I have been (until recently) installing the nightly builds for both Firefox and Thunderbird. (But I did give myself a threat by installing Thunderbird 3.0a1pre a couple of days ago :-) .) The only thing one needs to do as an extra step when installing FF in your home directory is to make sure that the plugins contain the correct symlinks. Look in /.mozilla/plugins/ and make sure that the symlinks are correct. Ciao. -- If you want to know what a man is like, take a look at how he treats his inferiors not his equals. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Joe Sloan wrote:

Basil Chupin wrote:

...

Joe Sloan wrote:

...

Basil Chupin wrote:

...

Wolfgang Woehl wrote:

...

Freitag, 8. Februar 2008 Aaron Kulkis:

...

Do you actually understand how silly you sound to anyone who actually understands the Unix and Linux security model.

Hi Aaron, just a short follow-up: see http://nvd.nist.gov/nvd.cfm for stuff about Mozilla Firefox before 2.0.0.12.

opensuse and you and me have 2.0.0.10. Ok, update rule. opensuse will catch up, probably within days, and everything is fine again. There's a gap though. Maybe try and not get phished in the meantime, Aaron?

Which is why I never use FF or TB as provided in openSUSE but always install the ones directly from Mozilla.

I use suse packages whenever available, but out of curiosity, how does installing an unmanaged tarball help?

I don't understand what you mean by "unmanaged"?

It means unmanaged. Suse (like most distros) has a package management system, which carries definite benefits. If you remove the carefully prepared package and replace it with an unpackaged tarball, the package management system knows nothing about it.