Jax formulated the question :
> 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". 

Wikipedia is correct sometimes.

> 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!

Could they explain how the infection gets from one boot sector to the 
next?

> Just saying.

Just asking.


--- NewsGate v1.0 gamma 2