Bell Bottoms [Blue Crushed Velvet with a Flowery Shirt] brought next 
idea :
> On Wed, 03 Dec 2014 11:05:55 -0500, FromTheRafters
>  wrote:
>
>> 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?
>
> In the trunk?
>
>>> Just saying.
>> 
>> Just asking.
>
> Just conjecturing.

That's how it gets from one system to the next, IOW its 'worminess' is 
on display there but it is not automated. How does it get from the 
floppy in the trunk to the next floppy in the next trunk?


--- NewsGate v1.0 gamma 2