Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 02:34:38 -0500
Reply-To: Wesley Alden Pegden <wes@CS.UCHICAGO.EDU>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: Wesley Alden Pegden <wes@CS.UCHICAGO.EDU>
Subject: Tranny fluid (was Re: infected files, Linux gets more viruses?)
In-Reply-To: <CAEOIPKOOCKNBBDDDMBPCEAJDMAA.jeff@tssgi.com>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
> Geez, this is worse than a tire thread...
You're totally right! On that note,
I changed out my tranny fluid tonight for Red Line MT90---For the record,
it took exactly 4 quarts (though I spilled a little) and shifting feels
very noticably smoother. Someone else on the list asked about the color
of the old fluid---mine was also a deep green...man, if that fluid had a
176,000 miles on it, I'm glad I changed it. One note of warning to those
preparing for the job... an exhaust pipe under my van ('84 1.9l) goes
right in front of the drain socket on the transmission, meaning that your
tool of choice for the 17mm plug only has a little over an inch of room.
The special end I got for my socket wrench, for example, wouldn't fit in
with the wrench on the back, so I ended up using just the end without the
socket wrench and turning it with a plumbers wrench. It worked, but
probably wouldn't have if the drain plug had been really well stuck.
To put the fluid in, there was a $2 hose style pump at the local auto
parts store chain. It worked fine, but in hindsight, I probably would
have just got a long hose and siphoned the fluid in from outside the car.
Sometime tomorrow I'm going under my car with some "Fluid Film" to do some
pre-winter rust prevention work. Anybody have any experience with this
stuff?
later,
wes
'84 vanagon
On Thu, 25 Sep 2003, Jeffrey Schwaia wrote:
> Take it off-line! Unless your Vanagon is operated Linux or Windows or CPM
> it doesn't belong on this list. There's plenty of other places you guys can
> evangelize about which OS is the best.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vanagon Mailing List [mailto:vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com]On Behalf
> Of Wesley Alden Pegden
> Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2003 9:51 PM
> To: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM
> Subject: Re: infected files, Linux gets more viruses?
>
>
> Okay, dude, I'll admit, I was overstepping with my "no viruses for linux"
> line, but I think you'll have to agree that claiming linux is more
> vunerable than linux is pure rubbish.
>
> > http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/2003Jun/gee20030605020295.htm
>
> This is an interesting link. I would encourage you to read the comments
> furthur down on the page. One person "expertly" points out that Mi2G
> seems to be off in their addition and subtraction in some cases by 1,000's
> of cases---seems highly dubious to me. Some comments on the slashdot page
> were interesting as well. Need some more info on Mi2G? google mi2g and
> check out the second link... In fact, check out most of the links.
> They're almost all complaining of the company's incompetancy.
>
> What about windows? Go to news.google.com . I read it all the time. And
> I don't know if there's been a day this whole summer without a story about
> the latest windows vulnerability or virus attack. And the number of times
> I've seen a article about a linux attack there? "0". And of course, if
> the operating systems were even close in security, you'd expect
> the media to be hugely lopsided in favor of windows---the media goes with
> the money, of course.
>
> Anyways, the simple fact of the matter is that viruses aren't an issue
> for linux. Period. While "0" was a little low on my part, "1" wouldn't
> be to far off for the linux virus count. I would encourage you to check
> out "The short life and hard times of a Linux virus" for a good
> explanation as to why I, as a Linux user, never worry about viruses. It's
> at http://libreniz.com/?inode=21
>
> In any office or dorm or computer lab, viruses and "worms" are topics of
> conversation. Why? Because people run Windows. I get these "worms" in
> my inbox all the time, and shake my head as I think about the person who
> ran an operating system silly enough to get infected by it.
>
> With diligent patch-work, windows can be a liveable operating system,
> though rarely for people who have spent any serious time with a good linux
> box as their primary system. All too often, though, your diligence won't
> matter: Microsoft is all too often behind the hackers, as the headlines
> have all-too-often indicated in the past days.
>
> I ran windows for years, with updated patches, and was the victim of many
> viruses. I've run Linux now for a solid two years, without a single
> attack. One time, I (very, very, foolishly) activated microsofts web
> server to host a web page on my machine. Literally, within 3 minutes, my
> computer was UNUSABLE, and the university had disconnected me from the
> network to quarantine my computer and prevent spread of the worms that had
> so quickly taken effect of the windows server's many vulnerabilities.
>
> Under linux, I run web servers, ssh servers, and sometimes ftp servers.
> How many attacks? 0.
>
> I'm all for everybody getting more information, and understanding the
> information they're getting. The study cited isn't even a study of
> attacks on personal computers, and doesn't even claim to be comprehensive
> or reliable (and explicitly warns that its sample size is to small). I'm
> sticking to my guns with linux. I'll let you know if I have any breakins.
>
> Sorry for getting longwinded, and I hope that I don't come off as arrogant
> or offensive. My opinion isn't worth any more than anybody elses.
>
> wes
> '84 vanagon... woohoo!
>
>
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Don Preston
> > '87 Wolfy GL ASI
> > ~Betsy the Mp3 Bus~
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Samuel L. Walters [mailto:samuel.walters@verizon.net]
> > Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2003 9:32 AM
> > To: Don Preston
> >
> > Don,
> >
> > I don't use Outlook for the very reason that so many try to attack it
> > because they hate MS, but I do keep Norton AntiVirus loaded and have it
> > updated daily. I also get all of the MS patches within a day or two of
> > when they notify me of them.
> >
> > I think that since so many computer "experts" continuously state that
> > Linux rarely if ever gets hit by viruses, that I want to ask you what is
> > the source of your allegation about Linux and virus attacks - you didn't
> > do any better in documentation of your assertion than the person you
> > criticized.
> >
> > I don't mean that to sound hostile, but as a request for information,
> > because I frequently think about setting up at least one computer with
> > Linux. For a number of years, I regularly read computer magazines, but
> > now don't very often so I could have missed obvious sources of this
> > information. But this is the first time I have ever heard or read the
> > assertion you make and I have heard and read the contrary dozens and
> > dozens of times.
> >
> > But, I have no problem with gaining new information and changing a
> > perception.
> >
> > Thanks in advance,
> >
> > Sam
> >
> >
> > --
> > Samuel L. Walters
> > Attorney at Law
> > GIS and Demographic Consultant
> > Mediation and Alternative Dispute Resolution
> >
> > 2636 N. Calvert St.
> > Baltimore, MD 21218
> >
> > 410-235-3086 (voice/fax)
> > 410-598-6068 (cell)
> >
> > All incoming and outgoing email scanned by
> > regularly updated Norton AntiVirus.
> >
>
| 
