FromTheRafters  wrote in
news:m5fgmb$7ip$1@news2.open-news-network.org: 

> Dustin explained :
>> Spamblk  wrote in
>> news:m5fb75$fj0$1@news.albasani.net: 
>>
>>> Dustin  wrote in 
>>> : 
>>> 
>>>> mike  wrote in
>>>> news:m5e1cu$56h$1@dont-email.me: ... 
>>>>> Until the community can come up with a single vision of linux
>>>>> on the desktop, it's a non-starter. 
>>> 
>>> Not quite. Sometimes programs written for one Linux distro will
>>> not work on another, just as a program written for XP-sp3 
>>> might *not* work on XP-sp1 or for that matter there may be 
>>> programs that will work on "professional" versions of Windows
>>> that will not work on "home" editions.
>>> 
>>> OTOH there are programs compiled for Linux that despite being
>>> hefty programs will work over multiple distros a good example is
>>> Mozilla Firefox. So, IMO, its not a question of a unified single
>>> distro but rather encouraging distro compatibility where
>>> possible. 
>>> 
>>>>> And if the community COULD come up with that definition, it
>>>>> would happen all on its own.  You couldn't stop it.  Gates
>>>>> couldn't stop it.  The cost would be spread thinly over a wide
>>>>> area and it would just happen. 
>>>> 
>>>> If it did happen, it would be a viable target for malware, it's
>>>> unavoidable. You have to reach a certain level of wide spread
>>>> use to justify the work, though. Linux isn't there in the
>>>> desktop scene yet. 
>>> 
>>> Indeed but it is also arguable Windows OS was historically a
>>> more vulnerable target due to the widespread use of DOS/Windows
>>> 9x and FAT/FAT32 at a time when *Nix was multi-user with a
>>> filesystem that was rather more secure (NB real permissions not
>>> DOS/FAT's RHS gimmick permissions). So certain malware like I
>>> think there was a virus called "stoned" that took advantage of
>>> Windows 9x security flaws to announce to the user their computer
>>> was "stoned" (more or less taken over). Under Linux, the same
>>> kind of silly user that clicked on a similar attachment could
>>> not have had their computer taken over quite so thouroughly
>>> unless they were running as root user. 
>>
>> You're misinformed, actually. Stoned existed prior to windows 9x
>> And it didn't take advantage of security flaws, it was a simple
>> file infector. While true that DOS/Win3x (fat32) was never really
>> designed with security first in mind, that's not the only reason
>> viruses were allowed to do what they did. 
> 
> I thought it was a boot sector virus.

Rafty... Wikipedia says "Stoned is the name of a boot sector 
computer virus". 

According to my techs it  means Stoned is not a "file infector" as 
Dustin says. Seems a boot secor virus has nothing to do with 
"DOS/Win3x" or "fat32" or any of that stuff Dustin mentioned. Duh!

Just saying.

-- 
Jax        
--- NewsGate v1.0 gamma 2