FromTheRafters  wrote in
news:m5ncd6$3c7$1@news2.open-news-network.org: 

> 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?

Rafty let's test Dustin and see if he knows. I bet he needs to use 
Google..... as usual. Graham caught him out doing that! lol

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