On 02/08/2015 14:29, John Rumm wrote:
On 8/1/2015 9:58 AM, dennis@home wrote:
On 31/07/2015 23:28, J.B.Treadstone wrote:

But Windows does _not_ have a monopoly on malware.

Although Linux is inherently more secure than Windows, Linux programs
can
have security holes too. These are usually fixed promptly, so keep the
system up to date. The four steps of blocking at the router, disabling
unnecessary services, running a firewall and keeping your software
updated
will mean you can safely use the Internet with confidence.


I think the issues with SH keys and heartbleed have put paid to the myth
that security risks in linux are fixed quickly. At least one of them was
a bug that was reintroduced into Ubuntu and lived there alive and well
for nearly a year after it had been found, patched and reintroduced
leaving the machines open to a known exploit.

One of the biggest linux security problems arise due to its widespread
use "embedded" in commodity hardware. Vast numbers of routers and other
infrastructure devices have well known security holes, but there is no
automated mechanism to patch them, and little support from the
manufacturers to support old kit either. This will become an ever
growing problem as the "internet of things" grows.

Yes I have a couple of NAS boxes that I wouldn't expose to the outside
world that run linux that are insecure and aren't going to get updates
unless I put a different OS on them, my two lenovos and mybook have
recently been patched to fix a few linux vulnerabilities. Its only taken
about three months.


You need to be aware that you are not invulnerable and need to be just
as careful as anyone else.

You only need look at the results of the pwn2own style hacking
competitions to realise that linux, IOS, android, OSX and other boxes
are routinely compromised along with the windows ones.


But linux types just say we are better than windows (usually XP) so we
don't need to do anything.
This is despite the fact that the majority of linux users wouldn't know
if they had been hacked and were botnet controllers.
The ones that do know how to never check because they actually believe
the cr@p about being invulnerable no matter how many vulnerabilities are
exposed.

On Sun, 02 Aug 2015 14:29:56 +0100, John Rumm wrote:

On 8/1/2015 9:58 AM, dennis@home wrote:
On 31/07/2015 23:28, J.B.Treadstone wrote:

But Windows does _not_ have a monopoly on malware.

Although Linux is inherently more secure than Windows, Linux programs
can have security holes too. These are usually fixed promptly, so keep
the system up to date. The four steps of blocking at the router,
disabling unnecessary services, running a firewall and keeping your
software updated
will mean you can safely use the Internet with confidence.


I think the issues with SH keys and heartbleed have put paid to the myth
that security risks in linux are fixed quickly. At least one of them was
a bug that was reintroduced into Ubuntu and lived there alive and well
for nearly a year after it had been found, patched and reintroduced
leaving the machines open to a known exploit.

Well curiously enough, it turned out that my distro was fixed before i
even /read/ about the heartbleed problem! And although a bug was in Ubuntu
for some time, it does not mean to say that /all/ distros were afflicted
with the same thing.

One of the biggest linux security problems arise due to its widespread use
"embedded" in commodity hardware. Vast numbers of routers and other
infrastructure devices have well known security holes, but there is no
automated mechanism to patch them, and little support from the
manufacturers to support old kit either. This will become an ever growing
problem as the "internet of things" grows.

You need to be aware that you are not invulnerable and need to be just
as careful as anyone else.

You only need look at the results of the pwn2own style hacking
competitions to realise that linux, IOS, android, OSX and other boxes are
routinely compromised along with the windows ones.

Pwn2Own 2015? The final cracked bug count came to:
5 bugs in the Windows operating system
4 bugs in Internet Explorer 11
3 bugs in Mozilla Firefox
3 bugs in Adobe Reader
3 bugs in Adobe Flash
2 bugs in Apple Safari
1 bug in Google Chrome

However, it would appear that there were no Linux boxes present.
When asked why Pwn2Own doesn't target Linux, Aaron Portnoy, Manager of the
Security Research Team at HP TippingPoint said: "Linux is not an operating
system that has widespread use with any /one/ particular distribution,
flavor or configuration. So because of that, it's a hard target to hit.

No OS is impervious, however with Linux users do not usually have
"root" privileges, like they do in windows. Typically they are given
lower-level accounts. What that means is that even if a Linux system is
compromised, the virus won't have the root access it would need to do
system wide damage; but it is possible that /that/ user's local files &
programs could be affected. No one else's.

Furthermore, a lot of windows users point to Android & say & say "Linux is
just as bad as windows", which is not wholly true. Android is attacked in
a totally different way from how a Linux desktop would have to be attacked.

While Android allows users to install software from outside Google Play
& desktop Linux allows its users to install software from outside their
software repositories, the majority of the software Android & Linux
users install comes from a /trusted, centralized/ repository. Users open
their app store or package manager, search for the program, & install it.
In fact there is very little reason IMO why a desktop Linux user would
/need/ to install software from outside their distro's repositories.

Windows desktop users OTOH have to open their browsers, search the web,
download an application from a website, & install it manually. Many
less-savvy users may end up downloading dangerous software or clicking a
fake “Download” button that leads to disguised malware.

"David Lang" wrote in message
...
Hi

New laptop is already starting to run slowly. Piggin Windows 8.


I used to have Norton 360 which had various function to do disc clean up,
defrag etc.

Not sure if Norton 360 still has those functions? Don't like the price of
it either.

Anyone recommend a download that will clean up & improve speed?

Yeah, download XP.
I've got two laptops on Windows 8 to sort out. 31 viruses, 63 PUPS and 49%
fragmentation so far.
Ccleaner freed up 2,361MB of space and 496 registry errors. I'm not going
after the duplicates.
Somebody has stolen the "Start" button and I've struggled to even find the
defrag prog.
Defraggler said "One day" to defrag. The Windows one will be faster, then I
can go back to Defraggler do the job properly.
Basically I can't find **** all and W8 is a lump of ****.

On 02/08/2015 19:42, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
"David Lang" wrote in message
...
Hi

New laptop is already starting to run slowly. Piggin Windows 8.


I used to have Norton 360 which had various function to do disc clean up,
defrag etc.

Not sure if Norton 360 still has those functions? Don't like the price of
it either.

Anyone recommend a download that will clean up & improve speed?

Yeah, download XP.
I've got two laptops on Windows 8 to sort out. 31 viruses, 63 PUPS and 49%
fragmentation so far.
Ccleaner freed up 2,361MB of space and 496 registry errors. I'm not going
after the duplicates.
Somebody has stolen the "Start" button and I've struggled to even find the
defrag prog.
Defraggler said "One day" to defrag. The Windows one will be faster, then I
can go back to Defraggler do the job properly.
Basically I can't find **** all and W8 is a lump of ****.






Well win8 is less vulnerable than XP so just think of how bad it would
have been with XP.
You could recommend the very first version of ubuntu, its not as old as
XP though.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 01/08/15 22:55, JHY wrote:


"bert" wrote in message
news
In article m,
lid writes
On 31/07/2015 13:16, bert wrote:

The big plus about UNIX (where every command looks like a mis-type) is
that the operating system is essentially invisible to the end user.
Well
it was designed by a telephone company.

That's true of windows and other OSes.
You can run applications and never see the OS if you want to.
An example is a cash machine, you don't see the windows or other OS
unless there is a fault.

How long can you run a Windows system without coming up against the
operating system?

Depends on what you want to do with it.

It's better than it was with W8 but at the time Unix came out it was
unavoidable. We had an early unix server in the office. It just sat in
the corner and ran - just like the pabx.

And later than that with a Win system you could just plug your
memory stick into the Win system and have it visible auto and
wouldn't have been able to do that with the Unix system.

straw man.

No, its an example of coming up against the OS if you need to do that.

Unix systems were at that time built for a different purpose.
wouldnt have been able to plug a 64 port serial card into your windows
machine and have it just work, either.

Never said they could.

On 31/07/2015 22:09, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 31/07/15 21:41, dennis@home wrote:
On 31/07/2015 13:39, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

which is only needed because of fundamental design flaws in windows. as
is the 'reboot on upgrade of anything'



Which hasn't been true for years.

Is still true today.

https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/887012

You really tell some porkies don't you?

My colleagues tell me that Linux is much better than Windows because
when you get a kernel update you don't have to reboot the machine when
you install it.

They've failed to explain when it starts being used.

Andy

On Sun, 02 Aug 2015 22:02:16 +0100, Vir Campestris wrote:

On 31/07/2015 22:09, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 31/07/15 21:41, dennis@home wrote:
On 31/07/2015 13:39, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

which is only needed because of fundamental design flaws in windows.
as is the 'reboot on upgrade of anything'



Which hasn't been true for years.

Is still true today.

https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/887012

You really tell some porkies don't you?

My colleagues tell me that Linux is much better than Windows because when
you get a kernel update you don't have to reboot the machine when you
install it.

They've failed to explain when it starts being used.

Immediately, I thought that would be obvious.

On 31/07/2015 14:22, Richard wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

On 31/07/15 12:43, Richard wrote:
"Davey" wrote in message ...

On Fri, 31 Jul 2015 11:05:45 +0100
John Rumm wrote:

I can only refer you to the suggestion offered by The Natural
Philosopher:
"Insert DVD, follow instructions."

"Simples", as they say.
Sounds like a simply way to lose all your documents, photos, and
other information. Then find you are no longer connected to your
email, newsgroups and don't recognise half your software.

We are talking about installing a different operating system, so I fail
to understand what you mean by that. Any sensible operator has any
important files backed up already, and why would installing Linux fail
to connect you to the internet?
Of course half the software would not be recognised, but any new
software required is free, in both senses. Firefox and Thunderbird, the
Mozilla programmes, are the same on either platform and will transfer
directly, importing your old profiles, and LibreOffice understands Word
and Excel and other Windows files. I see no problem.

Really? Is LibreOffice able to handle Excel VBA files without any
issues?

depends on what's in em ;-)

Well, will LibreOffice handle Excel VBA files and run the code?
Second thoughts, I need a sensible answer...
OK. I've downloaded windows version...
installing...
will try to use my Excel files when install finished...

Oh well, couldn't run my VBA enabled files using LibreOffice...
Uninstalling.


Also, if you are a "serious" Word user (references, cross references)
don't expect Open Office stuff to work correctly. Kingsoft, Libre
Office, etc.

Don't get me wrong, Linux is fine for a lot of people, just not
sufficient if you need to interchange files with a client using an MS
Office system.

"Huge" wrote in message
...
On 2015-08-02, JHY wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 01/08/15 22:55, JHY wrote:

[26 lines snipped]

And later than that with a Win system you could just plug your
memory stick into the Win system and have it visible auto and
wouldn't have been able to do that with the Unix system.

straw man.

No, its an example of coming up against the OS if you need to do that.

Plugging in a USB stick and having it automounted has worked under Unix
(and its relatives & descendants) for at least 15 years.

Sure, but what you snipped was the bit that showed that what
was being discussed was Unix well before that when it didn’t.

On 02/08/15 22:53, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Huge
wrote:

On 2015-08-02, JHY wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 01/08/15 22:55, JHY wrote:

[26 lines snipped]

And later than that with a Win system you could just plug your
memory stick into the Win system and have it visible auto and
wouldn't have been able to do that with the Unix system.

straw man.

No, its an example of coming up against the OS if you need to do that.

Plugging in a USB stick and having it automounted has worked under Unix
(and its relatives & descendants) for at least 15 years.

Yes, I really don't know WTF Mr JHY thinks he's talking about. Sounds a
bit like my win-fanboi brother and multiple screens attached to a
computer.

Its just Windows fanbois dredging up 15 years old issues.

The far more pertinent linux problem is when hardware manufacturers want
to retain rights to the driver code that supports their hardware. That
means it cant be bundled directly with Linux and has to be installed as
a 'with reservations' add-on.

Which is why there are still issues with some wifi chipsets and some
video chipsets.

And rather a lot of scanner chipsets.

It makes getting those working far far more of a pain than it needs to be.


The other bugbear is the slow rate of desktop penetration due to
inertia: its not worth porting apps for 5% of the desktop market, even
if the user base were happy to pay for them.

Of course of they all did, then there would be no reason not to use
Linux. Its a marketing catch 22 that Microsoft has been able to exploit
- but as you can see with some of the apps, why pay for Photoshop and
Windows when Gimp/Linux does *most* of what *most* people want out of an
image editing program.

Why pay for Quark or InDesign when Scribus does *most* of what you want
from a desktop publishing program..

These guys are cutting their own throats.


And then there is virtualisation: Machiens fast enough and with enough
RAM can now run windows in a sandbox where its vulnerabilities and
instabilities are not exposed, if they actually need to still run legacy
windows apps. Unless those apps need direct access to low level OS
tricks to drive specialised hardware.

OK you still need to pay for windows and the app BUT at least when it
crashes you don't have to reinstall everything: Just roll back to the
last stable snapshot - you did make sure the data you created wasn't
inside the windows environment didn't you?



--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
someone else's pocket.

On Mon, 03 Aug 2015 08:12:03 +0000, Huge wrote:

On 2015-08-02, newshound wrote:

[47 lines snipped]

Don't get me wrong, Linux is fine for a lot of people, just not
sufficient if you need to interchange files with a client using an MS
Office system.

I've been doing this for years. No-one's noticed.

I've done it quite a few times, with spreadsheets, documents etc, & those
people using MSOffice haven't complained.

On Mon, 03 Aug 2015 09:49:06 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

which is why apart from a few Windows desktop and laptop users, a few
vanishing Symbian users and other legacy kit,

Shame about Symbian. I had to stop using the joke in my operating systems
lectures:

"Whatever you do, don't leave the 'm' out..."

On 01/08/2015 00:09, Johnny B Good wrote:

[snip]

and visit: http://www.bleepingcomputer.com/ and download
"Combofix.exe"

I thought I'd give that a try here but it refuses to run on Windows 8.1.
Is it really only for XP, Vista, 7 and 8?

--
F

www.vulcantothesky.org - 2015, the last year to see a Vulcan fly

On 03/08/2015 10:10, J.B.Treadstone wrote:
On Mon, 03 Aug 2015 08:12:03 +0000, Huge wrote:

On 2015-08-02, newshound wrote:

[47 lines snipped]

Don't get me wrong, Linux is fine for a lot of people, just not
sufficient if you need to interchange files with a client using an MS
Office system.

I've been doing this for years. No-one's noticed.

I've done it quite a few times, with spreadsheets, documents etc, & those
people using MSOffice haven't complained.


Its usually the linux users that complain that they can't read the stuff
written by M$.

On 03/08/2015 10:01, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Its just Windows fanbois dredging up 15 years old issues.

Like you drag up even older issues about windows.

On 03/08/2015 09:49, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 02/08/15 22:02, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 31/07/2015 22:09, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 31/07/15 21:41, dennis@home wrote:
On 31/07/2015 13:39, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

which is only needed because of fundamental design flaws in
windows. as
is the 'reboot on upgrade of anything'



Which hasn't been true for years.

Is still true today.

https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/887012

You really tell some porkies don't you?

My colleagues tell me that Linux is much better than Windows because
when you get a kernel update you don't have to reboot the machine when
you install it.


you dont need to, know..

They've failed to explain when it starts being used.

well fine.

The point being made by the link I posted is simple. Windows cannot
overwrite a library file that is 'in use' by a running program.

Linux can't either, if it did then the program could start executing
random code if it had to drag in a page from the library that you have
just changed.
At best linux can add another library to the system and the program may
start to use that library when it is restarted.
If you can do as you claim it would be one hell of a security hole.


Its not a question of the fact that that program wont get the update
until it shuts down and restarts, its that the update cannot take place
while it is running.

Its one of those windows 'features' that didt make any difference back
in the day when updates came on a set of floppy disks once every 2 years
and took and hour to apply.


Its the same with the awful disk systems and algorithms. de fragging
used to be someting you do once every 5 years, now it is needed almost
annually or worse, simply because the way the disk layouts work is
utterly insane.

You never need to defrag NTFS, you know the one that was introduced
about 15 years ago.



Unix was designed for multi tasking and multi users in a busy
environment where one of the more important things was that you didn't
take a machine with hundreds of users on it down unless you had to.

Odd that we used to have to defrag the Plexus machines we had 15 years
ago. Of course it wasn't called defrag, it was called testing the
backups and you used to reload the backup which removed the
fragmentation from the drive. You used to test the backup whenever the
machines started to slow down.



The internet was mostly BUILT out of Unix computers. Networking is in
its blood.

When it consisted of three machines that was true.

Networking came much later than Unix.


Linux as 'son of Unix' took all the best features off it, and reverse
engineered them. The result is that while Bill Gates and Steve Bullmer
were busy adding chrome and tailfins to a dung cart., Linus Torvalds and
the professionals were busy firstly making sure they had a totally
reliable chassis, and then adding just enough of a dashboard and
controls to drive it.

Sure the 'user experience' lagged windows - but the reliability of *nix
platforms and the basic speed and efficiency of them was never in doubt,
which is why apart from a few Windows desktop and laptop users, a few
vanishing Symbian users and other legacy kit, and CISCOS IOS (and some
dedicated low level OSes used by real time hardware on very small chips
everyone else is using a *nix OS whether they realise it or not. And
that includes all Macs post OS9 and all android devices.

We weren't, System X ran on a real-time OS not unix but I did add a unix
SVr5 subsystem onto all the exchanges to manage the billing and
communications with the backend offices.



There never was a 'year of unix' or 'the linux breakthrought'

Not yet, probably never.


What has happened instead is that the world has wherever possible not
used Microsoft, because it costs and it runs like diarrhoea, but instead
used a *nix derivative:

Only since it became free as Unix was far more expensive than windows.

As memory cost plummeted it simply became easier
to stock in enough memory to run a more or less full *nix system even on
a tuppeny ha'penny ARM chipset, which nonetheless probably has more
processing power than an IBM mainframe of the 1970s...

My point is that *nix and Linux are the professionally engineered highly
developed reliable ubiquitous operating systems in use on nearly all new
devices.

My point is that Unix was a professionally engineered and *expensive* OS.
Linux came along and destroyed the Unix market just like you want it to
destroy windows.


Snip more windows bashing based on irrelevant personal views (not
experience).

Tim Streater wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:

On 03/08/2015 09:49, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

The internet was mostly BUILT out of Unix computers. Networking is
in its blood.

When it consisted of three machines that was true.

Networking came much later than Unix.

Unclear. I first saw unix running on a PDP-11/45 at DEC Western
Research Lab (Palo Alto) in 1977. Earlier than that, at CERN, we had
been building networks, based on our own hardware and software and
using coax cable. These were point to point links up to a few km and
running (for the shorter links) at up to 5Mbps.

Xerox produced XNS, which is what the Altos and Stars used over early
ethernet in the early 80s. AIUI, that might have become the wider
networking standard except that Xerox refused to release the specs for
some of the higher networking layers. Also by this time the unix boys
were busy creating IP, which then took over from XNS because it was
free and available with unix, and people had started writing IP stacks
for other machines, such as VAXes and some IBM systems.

But mail and file transfer had been going on using ad-hoc methods
anyway for some years.

I thought Ethernet was invented in the early 70s at Palo Alto.

And you must be right about email as HM sent her first email in 1976
over ARPANET

--
Robin
reply to address is (meant to be) valid

On 03/08/2015 16:23, Tim Streater wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:

On 03/08/2015 09:49, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

The internet was mostly BUILT out of Unix computers. Networking is in
its blood.

When it consisted of three machines that was true.

Networking came much later than Unix.

Unclear. I first saw unix running on a PDP-11/45 at DEC Western
Research Lab (Palo Alto) in 1977. Earlier than that, at CERN, we had
been building networks, based on our own hardware and software and
using coax cable. These were point to point links up to a few km and
running (for the shorter links) at up to 5Mbps.

OK TCP networking rather than uucp over serial links, etc.

On 03/08/15 14:38, dennis@home wrote:
On 03/08/2015 09:49, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 02/08/15 22:02, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 31/07/2015 22:09, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 31/07/15 21:41, dennis@home wrote:
On 31/07/2015 13:39, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

which is only needed because of fundamental design flaws in
windows. as
is the 'reboot on upgrade of anything'



Which hasn't been true for years.

Is still true today.

https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/887012

You really tell some porkies don't you?

My colleagues tell me that Linux is much better than Windows because
when you get a kernel update you don't have to reboot the machine when
you install it.


you dont need to, know..

They've failed to explain when it starts being used.

well fine.

The point being made by the link I posted is simple. Windows cannot
overwrite a library file that is 'in use' by a running program.

Linux can't either,

It can and does

if it did then the program could start executing
random code if it had to drag in a page from the library that you have
just changed.

No, that's not how it works. Shows how little you understand about linux.

Ret doing te research.

At best linux can add another library to the system and the program may
start to use that library when it is restarted.

Exactly.

If you can do as you claim it would be one hell of a security hole.

You haven't understood what I said then


Its not a question of the fact that that program wont get the update
until it shuts down and restarts, its that the update cannot take place
while it is running.

Its one of those windows 'features' that didt make any difference back
in the day when updates came on a set of floppy disks once every 2 years
and took and hour to apply.


Its the same with the awful disk systems and algorithms. de fragging
used to be someting you do once every 5 years, now it is needed almost
annually or worse, simply because the way the disk layouts work is
utterly insane.

You never need to defrag NTFS, you know the one that was introduced
about 15 years ago.

Really?

https://technet.microsoft.com/en-gb/...ktopfiles.aspx
"...But over time, even NTFS performance can suffer due to
less-than-optimal file placement. This gave birth to a thriving market
of third-party defragmentation tools."



Unix was designed for multi tasking and multi users in a busy
environment where one of the more important things was that you didn't
take a machine with hundreds of users on it down unless you had to.

Odd that we used to have to defrag the Plexus machines we had 15 years
ago. Of course it wasn't called defrag, it was called testing the
backups and you used to reload the backup which removed the
fragmentation from the drive. You used to test the backup whenever the
machines started to slow down.

What os were they running and what disk format did they use?

Liunx supports FAT and BTDS you know...ut just tries not to make them
default, because they are resoanbl;y crap




The internet was mostly BUILT out of Unix computers. Networking is in
its blood.

When it consisted of three machines that was true.

Networking came much later than Unix.

Again you betray a staggering amount of ignorance.

"In 1965, Thomas Marill and Lawrence G. Roberts created the first wide
area network (WAN). This was an immediate precursor to the ARPANET, of
which Roberts became program manager."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_network#History

Unix was first written in 1969., 4 years later..

Lets look at the internet - the first internet was DARPAnet..


"In August 1968, after Roberts and the DARPA funded community had
refined the overall structure and specifications for the ARPANET, an RFQ
was released by DARPA for the development of one of the key components,
the packet switches called Interface Message Processors (IMP's). "

http://www.internetsociety.org/inter...story-internet

Cisco - which was one of the first dedicated routers- wasn't formed
until 1984.

Prior to that Unix computers were the most common internet routers.






Linux as 'son of Unix' took all the best features off it, and reverse
engineered them. The result is that while Bill Gates and Steve Bullmer
were busy adding chrome and tailfins to a dung cart., Linus Torvalds and
the professionals were busy firstly making sure they had a totally
reliable chassis, and then adding just enough of a dashboard and
controls to drive it.

Sure the 'user experience' lagged windows - but the reliability of *nix
platforms and the basic speed and efficiency of them was never in doubt,
which is why apart from a few Windows desktop and laptop users, a few
vanishing Symbian users and other legacy kit, and CISCOS IOS (and some
dedicated low level OSes used by real time hardware on very small chips
everyone else is using a *nix OS whether they realise it or not. And
that includes all Macs post OS9 and all android devices.

We weren't, System X ran on a real-time OS not unix but I did add a unix
SVr5 subsystem onto all the exchanges to manage the billing and
communications with the backend offices.

What are you dribbling about?




There never was a 'year of unix' or 'the linux breakthrought'

Not yet, probably never.


What has happened instead is that the world has wherever possible not
used Microsoft, because it costs and it runs like diarrhoea, but instead
used a *nix derivative:

Only since it became free as Unix was far more expensive than windows.

Actually it wasn't.

I installed a modem on a SCO linux system to pickup email for a form of
lwayers. 50 laywers had terminal to that little box, and te Unix cots
about £1000 and te apps a bit more.

Cosrt per desktop was a couple of huindsred, and one laywer kept it
goimng in his spare time.

The typical price of a PC on a desk in the late 90s including sofdwtare,
hardware, maintenance and support was £3000 a desktop per year.



As memory cost plummeted it simply became easier
to stock in enough memory to run a more or less full *nix system even on
a tuppeny ha'penny ARM chipset, which nonetheless probably has more
processing power than an IBM mainframe of the 1970s...

My point is that *nix and Linux are the professionally engineered highly
developed reliable ubiquitous operating systems in use on nearly all new
devices.

My point is that Unix was a professionally engineered and *expensive* OS.
Linux came along and destroyed the Unix market just like you want it to
destroy windows.

I dont have to want it to destroy windows, Windows is doingt that for
itself.


Snip more windows bashing based on irrelevant personal views (not
experience).

I've been in IT since 1980. On Unix linux macs and PCFS. And real time
custom code as well.

Windows isn't dead yet. It just smells that way, and it has no future.


--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
someone else's pocket.

On 03/08/15 14:09, dennis@home wrote:
On 03/08/2015 10:10, J.B.Treadstone wrote:
On Mon, 03 Aug 2015 08:12:03 +0000, Huge wrote:

On 2015-08-02, newshound wrote:

[47 lines snipped]

Don't get me wrong, Linux is fine for a lot of people, just not
sufficient if you need to interchange files with a client using an MS
Office system.

I've been doing this for years. No-one's noticed.

I've done it quite a few times, with spreadsheets, documents etc, & those
people using MSOffice haven't complained.


Its usually the linux users that complain that they can't read the stuff
written by M$.

Ot isn't. Linux (Libre office) can in fact read MS word docs that MSword
users of the previous version cannot.


--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
someone else's pocket.

On 03/08/15 14:11, dennis@home wrote:
On 03/08/2015 10:01, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Its just Windows fanbois dredging up 15 years old issues.

Like you drag up even older issues about windows.


Except even microsoft admits that they are current issues as the link I
posted shows.

Fanboi.

--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
someone else's pocket.

On 03/08/15 18:29, Huge wrote:
On 2015-08-03, Robin wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:

On 03/08/2015 09:49, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

The internet was mostly BUILT out of Unix computers. Networking is
in its blood.

When it consisted of three machines that was true.

Networking came much later than Unix.

Unclear. I first saw unix running on a PDP-11/45 at DEC Western
Research Lab (Palo Alto) in 1977. Earlier than that, at CERN, we had
been building networks, based on our own hardware and software and
using coax cable. These were point to point links up to a few km and
running (for the shorter links) at up to 5Mbps.

Xerox produced XNS, which is what the Altos and Stars used over early
ethernet in the early 80s. AIUI, that might have become the wider
networking standard except that Xerox refused to release the specs for
some of the higher networking layers. Also by this time the unix boys
were busy creating IP, which then took over from XNS because it was
free and available with unix, and people had started writing IP stacks
for other machines, such as VAXes and some IBM systems.

But mail and file transfer had been going on using ad-hoc methods
anyway for some years.

I thought Ethernet was invented in the early 70s at Palo Alto.

It was, initially 3Mb/s, referred to as "research Ethernet" at Xerox. But
what protocol(s) ran over it were a different matter. At one time there
were a number of competing ones; X25, XNS, IPX/SPX (which was related
to XNS), AppleTalk, DECNet. Mostly gone now & replaced by TCP/IP.

Not sure X25 wasn't an entirely different wire level protocol. You are
correct with the others though.

I remember getting TCP/IP to work over X25 and indeed token ring...





--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
someone else's pocket.

On 31/07/2015 22:21, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
If you are going so small you can't run Linux, you probably aren't using
an ARM chip anyway - more like PIC or Atmel

My 'phone (non-Android) is an ARM. I'll take a good bet that so is the
printer, the scanner, the VHS player and the bread maker - to pick
what's in touching range. I could be wrong on the last two.

Andy

On 31/07/2015 22:39, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
You don't insert a new page element inro a (plain) text file. Well I
might, but you certainly wouldn't. You need linux to so that.

control-L isn't it?

On 31/07/2015 23:28, J.B.Treadstone wrote:
Although Linux is inherently more secure than Windows, Linux programs can
have security holes too. These are usually fixed promptly, so keep the
system up to date. The four steps of blocking at the router, disabling
unnecessary services, running a firewall and keeping your software updated
will mean you can safely use the Internet with confidence.

I run Windows here. I have an anti-virus. I've actually seen it trigger
once or twice when spam arrives - but never really in anger. (I wasn't
going to run that exe...)

The same set of safety techniques you use on a Linux box have served me
well here on Windows.

I stand by what I said; there are a lot of idiots using Windows. Those
servers you mention are not, by and large, run by idiots, nor by the naive.

And as for Linux holes "usually being fixed promptly" - well, just come
up with a good argument for our corporate IT on why they ought to move
away from Ubuntu 12.04. Fixed isn't necessarily rolled out.

Andy

On 03/08/15 21:01, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 31/07/2015 22:39, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
You don't insert a new page element inro a (plain) text file. Well I
might, but you certainly wouldn't. You need linux to so that.

control-L isn't it?
If the text editor allows it, yes..


--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
someone else's pocket.

On 03/08/2015 19:53, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 03/08/15 14:38, dennis@home wrote:
On 03/08/2015 09:49, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 02/08/15 22:02, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 31/07/2015 22:09, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 31/07/15 21:41, dennis@home wrote:
On 31/07/2015 13:39, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

which is only needed because of fundamental design flaws in
windows. as
is the 'reboot on upgrade of anything'



Which hasn't been true for years.

Is still true today.

https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/887012

You really tell some porkies don't you?

My colleagues tell me that Linux is much better than Windows because
when you get a kernel update you don't have to reboot the machine when
you install it.


you dont need to, know..

They've failed to explain when it starts being used.

well fine.

The point being made by the link I posted is simple. Windows cannot
overwrite a library file that is 'in use' by a running program.

Linux can't either,

It can and does

if it did then the program could start executing
random code if it had to drag in a page from the library that you have
just changed.

No, that's not how it works. Shows how little you understand about linux.

Ret doing te research.

At best linux can add another library to the system and the program may
start to use that library when it is restarted.

Exactly.

If you can do as you claim it would be one hell of a security hole.

You haven't understood what I said then


Go on then as I can't prove a negative its up to you to prove your
unsubstantiated claim.


Its not a question of the fact that that program wont get the update
until it shuts down and restarts, its that the update cannot take place
while it is running.

Its one of those windows 'features' that didt make any difference back
in the day when updates came on a set of floppy disks once every 2 years
and took and hour to apply.


Its the same with the awful disk systems and algorithms. de fragging
used to be someting you do once every 5 years, now it is needed almost
annually or worse, simply because the way the disk layouts work is
utterly insane.

You never need to defrag NTFS, you know the one that was introduced
about 15 years ago.

Really?

https://technet.microsoft.com/en-gb/...ktopfiles.aspx
"...But over time, even NTFS performance can suffer due to
less-than-optimal file placement. This gave birth to a thriving market
of third-party defragmentation tools."

The same is true of any file system on a rotating disk.
If you don't put the bits together sequential access is slower and if
you don't put frequently accessed stuff in the right place seeks will
slow it down. You don't need to defrag NTFS ever.




Unix was designed for multi tasking and multi users in a busy
environment where one of the more important things was that you didn't
take a machine with hundreds of users on it down unless you had to.

Odd that we used to have to defrag the Plexus machines we had 15 years
ago. Of course it wasn't called defrag, it was called testing the
backups and you used to reload the backup which removed the
fragmentation from the drive. You used to test the backup whenever the
machines started to slow down.

What os were they running and what disk format did they use?

Some variant of berkley *Unix*,
I have no idea which filesystem they used but there wasn't much choice
as I recall.


Liunx supports FAT and BTDS you know...ut just tries not to make them
default, because they are resoanbl;y crap





The internet was mostly BUILT out of Unix computers. Networking is in
its blood.

When it consisted of three machines that was true.

Networking came much later than Unix.

Again you betray a staggering amount of ignorance.

"In 1965, Thomas Marill and Lawrence G. Roberts created the first wide
area network (WAN). This was an immediate precursor to the ARPANET, of
which Roberts became program manager."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_network#History

Unix was first written in 1969., 4 years later..

Lets look at the internet - the first internet was DARPAnet..


"In August 1968, after Roberts and the DARPA funded community had
refined the overall structure and specifications for the ARPANET, an RFQ
was released by DARPA for the development of one of the key components,
the packet switches called Interface Message Processors (IMP's). "

http://www.internetsociety.org/inter...story-internet


Cisco - which was one of the first dedicated routers- wasn't formed
until 1984.

Prior to that Unix computers were the most common internet routers.






Linux as 'son of Unix' took all the best features off it, and reverse
engineered them. The result is that while Bill Gates and Steve Bullmer
were busy adding chrome and tailfins to a dung cart., Linus Torvalds and
the professionals were busy firstly making sure they had a totally
reliable chassis, and then adding just enough of a dashboard and
controls to drive it.

Sure the 'user experience' lagged windows - but the reliability of *nix
platforms and the basic speed and efficiency of them was never in doubt,
which is why apart from a few Windows desktop and laptop users, a few
vanishing Symbian users and other legacy kit, and CISCOS IOS (and some
dedicated low level OSes used by real time hardware on very small chips
everyone else is using a *nix OS whether they realise it or not. And
that includes all Macs post OS9 and all android devices.

We weren't, System X ran on a real-time OS not unix but I did add a unix
SVr5 subsystem onto all the exchanges to manage the billing and
communications with the backend offices.

What are you dribbling about?

An ultra reliable OS that runs telephone exchanges with an availability
that makes unix look cr@p.


There never was a 'year of unix' or 'the linux breakthrought'

Not yet, probably never.


What has happened instead is that the world has wherever possible not
used Microsoft, because it costs and it runs like diarrhoea, but instead
used a *nix derivative:

Only since it became free as Unix was far more expensive than windows.

Actually it wasn't.

Actually it was.


I installed a modem on a SCO linux system to pickup email for a form of
lwayers. 50 laywers had terminal to that little box, and te Unix cots
about £1000 and te apps a bit more.

And you don't call that expensive?


Cosrt per desktop was a couple of huindsred, and one laywer kept it
goimng in his spare time.



The typical price of a PC on a desk in the late 90s including sofdwtare,
hardware, maintenance and support was £3000 a desktop per year.



As memory cost plummeted it simply became easier
to stock in enough memory to run a more or less full *nix system even on
a tuppeny ha'penny ARM chipset, which nonetheless probably has more
processing power than an IBM mainframe of the 1970s...

My point is that *nix and Linux are the professionally engineered highly
developed reliable ubiquitous operating systems in use on nearly all new
devices.

My point is that Unix was a professionally engineered and *expensive* OS.
Linux came along and destroyed the Unix market just like you want it to
destroy windows.

I dont have to want it to destroy windows, Windows is doingt that for
itself.


Snip more windows bashing based on irrelevant personal views (not
experience).

I've been in IT since 1980. On Unix linux macs and PCFS. And real time
custom code as well.

I was designing the systems not using them.


Windows isn't dead yet. It just smells that way, and it has no future.



You have said that many times why should this time be different?
You even have to drag so called based on linux systems in so you can
claim linux is "winning", whatever that means.

On 31/07/2015 23:50, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

If you upgrade a DLL that is in use by a running program in windows you
need to reboot mor at leats close that program

In Linux, you don't.

End of.

In Windows if a program has a DLL loaded it has an open handle to the
file with a write lock. That stops the code getting changed on the fly.
Seems quite sensible.

AIUI (and ICBW) in Linux the file (inode) will hang around, and the name
will be associated to the new file. Which means new processes get the
new file.

But I don't understand how existing processes get the bug fix. I suspect
they don't.

Andy

On 03/08/2015 19:54, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 03/08/15 14:11, dennis@home wrote:
On 03/08/2015 10:01, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Its just Windows fanbois dredging up 15 years old issues.

Like you drag up even older issues about windows.


Except even microsoft admits that they are current issues as the link I
posted shows.

Fanboi.


There are issues in all OS so what? You still keep dragging up 15 year
old ones. Its a good job nobody drags up 15 year old linux issues.

On 03/08/2015 19:54, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 03/08/15 14:09, dennis@home wrote:
On 03/08/2015 10:10, J.B.Treadstone wrote:
On Mon, 03 Aug 2015 08:12:03 +0000, Huge wrote:

On 2015-08-02, newshound wrote:

[47 lines snipped]

Don't get me wrong, Linux is fine for a lot of people, just not
sufficient if you need to interchange files with a client using an MS
Office system.

I've been doing this for years. No-one's noticed.

I've done it quite a few times, with spreadsheets, documents etc, &
those
people using MSOffice haven't complained.


Its usually the linux users that complain that they can't read the stuff
written by M$.

Ot isn't. Linux (Libre office) can in fact read MS word docs that MSword
users of the previous version cannot.



Rubbish, anyone can install the reader software and read them, it is
free to.

On 02/08/2015 05:05, John Rumm wrote:
Personally I don't care for any type of troll. I am content to use
Linux, Windows, VMS, and any number of other OSes. Each have strengths
and weaknesses, it just takes a bit of common sense to step back and
look at the bigger picture to work out what fits the circumstances.


Nicely put.

To argue one is always better than the other is childish. (rather like
dribble arguing that combis are always better, and other prats arguing
that stored DHW is always better)

Just been trying to explain that one to my wife... (our boiler went off
several times last winter)

Andy

On 02/08/2015 11:53, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
straw man. Unix systems were at that time built for a different purpose.
wouldnt have been able to plug a 64 port serial card into your windows
machine and have it just work, either.

Actually I did.

Andy

On 03/08/2015 19:56, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 03/08/15 18:29, Huge wrote:
On 2015-08-03, Robin wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:

On 03/08/2015 09:49, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

The internet was mostly BUILT out of Unix computers. Networking is
in its blood.

When it consisted of three machines that was true.

Networking came much later than Unix.

Unclear. I first saw unix running on a PDP-11/45 at DEC Western
Research Lab (Palo Alto) in 1977. Earlier than that, at CERN, we had
been building networks, based on our own hardware and software and
using coax cable. These were point to point links up to a few km and
running (for the shorter links) at up to 5Mbps.

Xerox produced XNS, which is what the Altos and Stars used over early
ethernet in the early 80s. AIUI, that might have become the wider
networking standard except that Xerox refused to release the specs for
some of the higher networking layers. Also by this time the unix boys
were busy creating IP, which then took over from XNS because it was
free and available with unix, and people had started writing IP stacks
for other machines, such as VAXes and some IBM systems.

But mail and file transfer had been going on using ad-hoc methods
anyway for some years.

I thought Ethernet was invented in the early 70s at Palo Alto.

It was, initially 3Mb/s, referred to as "research Ethernet" at Xerox. But
what protocol(s) ran over it were a different matter. At one time there
were a number of competing ones; X25, XNS, IPX/SPX (which was related
to XNS), AppleTalk, DECNet. Mostly gone now & replaced by TCP/IP.

Not sure X25 wasn't an entirely different wire level protocol. You are
correct with the others though.

I remember getting TCP/IP to work over X25 and indeed token ring...






I remember the first ethernet I ordered and installed used ISO
protocols, TCP was just a labs thing.

On 29/07/2015 23:02, David Lang wrote:
Hi

New laptop is already starting to run slowly. Piggin Windows 8.


I used to have Norton 360 which had various function to do disc clean
up, defrag etc.

Not sure if Norton 360 still has those functions? Don't like the price
of it either.

Anyone recommend a download that will clean up & improve speed?


new laptop ? windows 8, I think not.

On 02/08/2015 16:57, J.B.Treadstone wrote:
While Android allows users to install software from outside Google Play
& desktop Linux allows its users to install software from outside their
software repositories, the majority of the software Android & Linux
users install comes from a/trusted, centralized/ repository.

You've not heard about the Stagefright vulnerability?

If you have the right apps on your 'phone, and someone sends you a
specially crafted message, you are pwned.

Andy

On 03/08/15 21:12, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 31/07/2015 23:50, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

If you upgrade a DLL that is in use by a running program in windows you
need to reboot mor at leats close that program

In Linux, you don't.

End of.

In Windows if a program has a DLL loaded it has an open handle to the
file with a write lock. That stops the code getting changed on the fly.
Seems quite sensible.

AIUI (and ICBW) in Linux the file (inode) will hang around, and the name
will be associated to the new file. Which means new processes get the
new file.

But I don't understand how existing processes get the bug fix. I suspect
they don't.

No, they don't, obviously. But the point is you don't need to crash
running programs (or the whole machine) just to get an update in.

Andy


--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
someone else's pocket.

On 03/08/15 21:14, dennis@home wrote:
On 03/08/2015 19:54, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 03/08/15 14:11, dennis@home wrote:
On 03/08/2015 10:01, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Its just Windows fanbois dredging up 15 years old issues.

Like you drag up even older issues about windows.


Except even microsoft admits that they are current issues as the link I
posted shows.

Fanboi.


There are issues in all OS so what?

They are not te same issues in all OSes, that's why so what.

Dick.

You still keep dragging up 15 year
old ones. Its a good job nobody drags up 15 year old linux issues.


--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
someone else's pocket.

On 03/08/2015 09:49, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 02/08/15 22:02, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 31/07/2015 22:09, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 31/07/15 21:41, dennis@home wrote:
On 31/07/2015 13:39, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

which is only needed because of fundamental design flaws in
windows. as
is the 'reboot on upgrade of anything'



Which hasn't been true for years.

Is still true today.

https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/887012

You really tell some porkies don't you?

My colleagues tell me that Linux is much better than Windows because
when you get a kernel update you don't have to reboot the machine when
you install it.


you dont need to, know..

They've failed to explain when it starts being used.

well fine.

The point being made by the link I posted is simple. Windows cannot
overwrite a library file that is 'in use' by a running program.

snips two pages that don't answer the question

Yes, there's a problem in Windows where you can't write to an open
executable. You can write to one in Linux. But when do those updates
start being executed?

I'm one of the 2^-n people who do need to know. I'm wondering if you do.

Andy

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 03/08/15 21:12, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 31/07/2015 23:50, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

If you upgrade a DLL that is in use by a running program in windows you
need to reboot mor at leats close that program

In Linux, you don't.

End of.

In Windows if a program has a DLL loaded it has an open handle to the
file with a write lock. That stops the code getting changed on the fly.
Seems quite sensible.

AIUI (and ICBW) in Linux the file (inode) will hang around, and the name
will be associated to the new file. Which means new processes get the
new file.

But I don't understand how existing processes get the bug fix. I suspect
they don't.

No, they don't, obviously. But the point is you don't need to crash
running programs (or the whole machine) just to get an update in.

nor do you with Windows. You can delay the restart until you are ready.

--
Please note new email address:

On 03/08/2015 21:12, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 31/07/2015 23:50, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

If you upgrade a DLL that is in use by a running program in windows you
need to reboot mor at leats close that program

In Linux, you don't.

End of.

In Windows if a program has a DLL loaded it has an open handle to the
file with a write lock. That stops the code getting changed on the fly.
Seems quite sensible.

AIUI (and ICBW) in Linux the file (inode) will hang around, and the name
will be associated to the new file. Which means new processes get the
new file.

But I don't understand how existing processes get the bug fix. I suspect
they don't.



Neither does TNP or he would say how.

One way would be to send a kill to restart the process but that doesn't
fit with never doing restarts.

Of course you could use the kernel thread locking to lock the kernel so
no user programs are actually using it and then update the bits in the
kernel which will work as long as no functional changes are made, just
bug fixes. It won't work if the code is part of the lock handling
though, so if you find a bug there you are stuffed.