Following on from the win xp bug that allowed remote execution..

Are you some sort of authority?

And the bug isn't in the server side, its in the WINDOWS CLIENT.

As long as you are not running windows sharing on a windows desktop, you are safe.

So all this discussion about linux servers and samba is a complete red herring.

No. It is here now and works

Mostly better than windows, except in edge cases of weird special hardware or weird special apps

Don't talk rubbish. Its a bloody linux bug.

Yes, it *can* work but for many people only offering a subset of what they (not you) would *need*.

At it's best it's the same as Windows as OSX and transparent to the user.

Like many network scanners, most car diagnostic hardware and huge lists or everyday stuff that work fine under Windows.

Yeah, 'weird apps' like iTunes, MS Office, and Garmin / TomTom stuff.

I think the Linux zealots should be forced to just use Linux (no Windows apps running in VM's or Emulators, eh TNP) on the same way the Solar Energy zealots should be cut off of the grid (financial and energy parasites that they are). ;-)

FWIW, most of my machines (and all my Raspberry Pi's) run Linux (dual boot with Windows in most cases) and so I often check if Linux can do the same things as Windows can and in many cases the answer is either 'sort of' (in that some bits work but not all) or 'nope'.

However, if like many of the Linux zealots you just want a WP machine, a web terminal or a reminder of what a GUI DE precariously balanced on top of a CLI feels like (like Windows 3.1) you will probably be very happy. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

Assuming you're talking about the ms17-010 "wannacrypt" bug?

i.e. you mean not running the default configuration.

No. Its better. I've used all of them.

'huge lists of every day stuff' - like roast banamnas Elastoplasts and cans of coke you mean?

Hand waving is all very well, but you should put names to these alleged 'huge lisrs'

Yep, those weird apps that either have better linux alternatrives or are so weird no one uses them anyway.

I dont need to be forced to.

You are of course correct. Linuxx cant do a 'blue screen of death'

I really sometimes do feel genuinely sorry for you T i m. You believe everything people with huge marketing budgets tell you, and you think that makes you smart.

Default before IIRC windows Vista

AND you have to be connected to te 'net without a firewalled NAT router...and ..and

still the default today.

Nobody in their right mind opens TCP/445 (or 138, 139) from the internet, but you're vulnerable from any other infected machine on your LAN.

Windows 7 and above *is* slightly more sensible about bringing up/down the firewall depending whether it considers you're on a network that's part of a domain your machine is joined to, or at home (likely behind NAT) or on a parkbench sniffing free wifi.

No, it isn't 'better' , it's worse, much worse for many people. It could be better for you but you only reflect the feelings of ~5% of the desktop OS user base.

Yes, that's exactly what I mean.

I don't have to do any such thing, especially when Linux couldn't even cope with a basic wired mouse that XP and OSX dealt with in their stride. What's that, the man in the shed hadn't got round to reverse engineering the Windows driver for that ... ;-(

Yeah right ... Libre Office Writer has change control compatibility with MS Office Word does it?

There is a real Linux Photoshop equivalent is there (and don't say GIMP)!

What I think is funny are the number of programs marked as 'Linux' versions' but they are just the Windows ones bundled with WINE (like Teamviewer for Linux).

Nice, classic Linux Zealot denial / reply ... 'if it doesn't work with Linux, it must be bad / weird so I don't want it anyway ...'. ;-)

What's that, you have stopped running your Windows VM for those apps that *aren't* available on Linux at last eh?

No, but it does do a Kernel panic equally well. One of the first things I do is add a 'Force close'' applet to the Linux dock so I can easily close stuff when it locks up.

Aw bless, but please don't be mate. I'm happy, are you?

Do you think I've ever read / watched or acted on any 'marketing', especially to do with an OS [1]? Do you imagine I've rushed out and bought the latest MS or Apple OS offering ... rather than waited till a machine turned up with it on? You know I'm still running XP as my daily desktop (on a Mac Mini) don't you?

I bet there are more Penguins and 'I love Linux' stickers in your life than there are *any* MS / Apple or Linux in mine.

Oh, no ... most of my PC's and laptops have 'Designed for Windows' on them. Not one has 'Designed for Linux' on it for some reason. Is there such a thing OOI? ;-)

Cheers, T i m

Huge numbers do if you plug a USB hard-disk into them. I'm pretty sure the SKY one does, but not certain as I use a separately purchased router these days; my parents' TalkTalk one certainly does - that's a fair chunk of the market straight away.

My PVR can be use both NFS and Samba and can be client or server.

SteveW

Absolutely, & has done for years. D i mbo can't get it to work, he wants it to be like windoze. Ain't gonna happen. It's *not* meant to be like windoze.

Yup.

It can't run any of the 60,000+ windows viruses either!

Him, smart? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA I've seen his ramblings in some Linux groups, & eventually /most/ of the other people totally ignored him. Thick as pigshit.

To mess up a Linux box, you need to work at it; to mess up your Windows box, you just need to work on it.

If I just installed Samba yesterday would it have a fix?

A single line added to smb.conf will make it safe. The fix is now out there.

En el artículo , Martin Barclay escribió:

Completely ignores advice given in the mistaken belief that he knows it all and is right. Not known as D i m for nothing

Heh.

En el artículo , dennis@home.? escribió:

/have/ waited. This is English we're speaking here.

And M$/Windows just had to deal with WannaCry, a very similar bug in SMB.

All software has bugs. It's how they get fixed that matters, and that's where M$ is lacking.

You're full of s*it, dennis.

Well, that's true. You had to get /something/ right. Well done. *claps hands*

#No, because it never had the problem,

What about 'the fault was in windows SMB clients' did you not understand?

No fix to linux will affect a windows machine

The fault was in the Windows SMB *SERVER* which is part of both desktop and server versions of windows