Question #159797 “Trying to clean install kubuntu: how can a har...” : Questions : ubiquity package : Ubuntu

Revision history for this message

John Vincent (jonny-vincent) said on 2011-05-31:

#1

I purchased Canonical Home Support and asked for assistance. I got this:

"To install Ubuntu or Kubuntu, all you need to do is head over to their respective project page, and download the installer disc.

http://www.ubuntu.com/
http://www.kubuntu.org/

The Ubuntu website even provides you with full, clear instructions on creating an installation disc, as well as how to run the installer from a USB stick.

Once set up to boot from the disc, the installation is very much straightforward and presented in a graphical manner."

Thanks guys!

Revision history for this message

mycae (mycae) said on 2011-05-31:

#2

I hate to say it, but pretty much all of what you have written above is expected behaviour. You may have heard the expression "in unix everything is a file".

For example, it is possible (if you use dsp emulation), to create static on your speakers by sending a zip file to your sound-card.

It is possible to shred your hard-drive at the block level using your shred command above.

Somehow you booted to a linux session to issue that shred command. If you had done that to a live mounted filesystem, your filesystem will funnily enough break, you are knocking the foundation out from under the OS. If you did it from a liveCD, it won't "wipe" the files on the liveCD. The liveCD creates a ramdisk in your memory, so its not on your HD at any time.

If you have a specific question, please ask, but everything above makes sense. Linux has a monolithic kernel that includes almost all the drivers you need. lspci will tell you about your atheros card, as the card itself is internally labelled as manufactured by atheros -- it will be in the ROM of the device (likely an EEPROM).

Wireless can, in many cases work "out of the box". There are no hackers here trying to steal your data -- its just the OS doing its job.

Revision history for this message

John Vincent (jonny-vincent) said on 2011-06-01:

#3

Please look at the submitted evidence and reassess your incorrect conclusion regarding the nature of "the job" and whether or not it is being done.

I have serious problems and I need serious and competent people to solve them. I have wasted far too many valuable months compiling and submitting evidence for 'experts' who then go silent once I've finally convinced them of what I'd already proved in my first post. If you cannot be serious or competent, please at least be respectful. It's very disrespectful to assume conclusions whilst speed-reading / ignoring evidence submitted.

"Somehow you booted to a Linux session"

Yes. You would understand the unremarkable nature of that fact had you read the previous line:

"But last night, from either a rescatux or Parted Magic live CD, I ran this command on one of my virtually-dead laptops:

~# shred -fuvz --iterations=12 /dev/sda"

-------------

"If you had done that to a live mounted filesystem, your filesystem will funnily enough break"

What in god's name are you talking about? Why would I shred a live mounted filesystem? /dev/sda is my (visible) hard drive. Like I said, there hasn't been consistency on that particular count. You wouldn't be confusing my hard drive with a live CD, had you respectfully read mere portions of the post.

---------------

When you run a ~ lsof command, you get 3500 lines of output? Please feel free to submit yours for comparison.

Below is another ~# lsof command I ran just now after 'clean' installing kubuntu 10.10 from a Canonical CD onto that 'shredded' / 'wiped' > ext4 formatted /dev/sda1 partition (that's my listed primary hard drive, if there is still confusion at your end). I then upgraded to 11.04 via KPackageKit and ran this command.

It's 18,167 lines of terminal output. Please feel free to submit yours for comparison.

https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B9QRuOdDOJuHYTk0OGY3NDUtNTk3ZC00OTQ5LTg4ZGMtYmRmYzMzNzA4MmJi&sort=name&layout=list&num=50

---------------------------

"Wireless can, in many cases work "out of the box".

So it would seem. Except, of course, for the fact that I clearly stated I deactived the adapter, hard and soft deactivation.

And let's discuss your ideas about the nature of the word "work". Particularly whom a driver / protocol "works" for. I believe it should be the owner. I'm unwilling to debate this issue with you, if you disagree.

http://i.imgur.com/Nsoyq.jpg

Whilst you may be happy with your drivers "working" like *that*; i.e. ruining your computers for ever, after 5 minutes of (non) use, that's fine with me. But I have slightly more taxing requirements.

------------------------------

"There are no hackers here trying to steal your data -- its just the OS doing its job."

What in god's name are you talking about? Where is "here"? Are you in my building? Are you in Bangkok?

Please understand I require assistance for a VERY serious, career-ruining and more, issue. Whilst there is nothing more in the world I'd like than competent assistance, there is nothing in the world I'd like less than disrespectful dismissal as it wastes my preciously valuable time online, as systems crash around me.

--------------------------------

"If you have a specific question, please ask, but everything above makes sense."

Pretty sure I asked a specific question which you didn't answer. You might be able to find it in the title. Have a crack at it, will you?

If you'd rather not, that is your prerogative - of course. But please don't waste my valuable time; it's insulting which is fine, but it's time-sapping, which is not.

Please look at the submitted evidence and reassess your incorrect conclusion regarding the nature of "the job" and whether or not it is being done.

I have serious problems and I need serious and competent people to solve them. I have wasted far too many valuable months compiling and submitting evidence for 'experts' who then go silent once I've finally convinced them of what I'd already proved in my first post. If you cannot be serious or competent, please at least be respectful. It's very disrespectful to assume conclusions whilst speed-reading / ignoring evidence submitted.

"Somehow you booted to a Linux session"

Yes. You would understand the unremarkable nature of that fact had you read the previous line:

"But last night, from either a rescatux or Parted Magic live CD, I ran this command on one of my virtually-dead laptops:

~# shred -fuvz --iterations=12 /dev/sda"

-------------

"If you had done that to a live mounted filesystem, your filesystem will funnily enough break"

What in god's name are you talking about? Why would I shred a live mounted filesystem? /dev/sda is my (visible) hard drive. Like I said, there hasn't been consistency on that particular count. You wouldn't be confusing my hard drive with a live CD, had you respectfully read mere portions of the post.

---------------

When you run a ~ lsof command, you get 3500 lines of output? Please feel free to submit yours for comparison.

Below is another ~# lsof command I ran just now after 'clean' installing kubuntu 10.10 from a Canonical CD onto that 'shredded' / 'wiped' > ext4 formatted /dev/sda1 partition (that's my listed primary hard drive, if there is still confusion at your end). I then upgraded to 11.04 via KPackageKit and ran this command.

It's 18,167 lines of terminal output. Please feel free to submit yours for comparison.

https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B9QRuOdDOJuHYTk0OGY3NDUtNTk3ZC00OTQ5LTg4ZGMtYmRmYzMzNzA4MmJi&sort=name&layout=list&num=50

---------------------------

"Wireless can, in many cases work "out of the box".

So it would seem. Except, of course, for the fact that I clearly stated I deactived the adapter, hard and soft deactivation.

And let's discuss your ideas about the nature of the word "work". Particularly whom a driver / protocol "works" for. I believe it should be the owner. I'm unwilling to debate this issue with you, if you disagree.

http://i.imgur.com/Nsoyq.jpg

Whilst you may be happy with your drivers "working" like *that*; i.e. ruining your computers for ever, after 5 minutes of (non) use, that's fine with me. But I have slightly more taxing requirements.

------------------------------

"There are no hackers here trying to steal your data -- its just the OS doing its job."

What in god's name are you talking about? Where is "here"? Are you in my building? Are you in Bangkok?

Please understand I require assistance for a VERY serious, career-ruining and more, issue. Whilst there is nothing more in the world I'd like than competent assistance, there is nothing in the world I'd like less than disrespectful dismissal as it wastes my preciously valuable time online, as systems crash around me.

--------------------------------

"If you have a specific question, please ask, but everything above makes sense."

Pretty sure I asked a specific question which you didn't answer. You might be able to find it in the title. Have a crack at it, will you?

If you'd rather not, that is your prerogative - of course. But please don't waste my valuable time; it's insulting which is fine, but it's time-sapping, which is not.

Revision history for this message

Paul Stewart (paulbrianstewart) said on 2011-06-03:

#4

Hi John,

I'm not an expert, and I'm not dismissing your problem. If the new laptop you bought is broken immediately upon opening it and installing xp, I then gather that it's an XP problem?

If the laptop is new, surely it is still under warranty? Can you not take it back to the shop and tell them to fix it or give you another one?

Thanks.

Revision history for this message

John Vincent (jonny-vincent) said on 2011-06-04:

#5

Hi Paul, thanks for your response. I don't mean to come across like a jerk but I have incredibly massive problems here and cannot afford any more dismissals from experts who are...well, let's be diplomatic and merely assume they're lazy - I have strong reason to believe that's far too kind a label.

Yes, I can - in response to your question. But that will be hassle I don't have the time for. You should see the reaction of companies to evidence their 'Recovery' partitions have been corrupted. They try to blame it all on hardware drivers, which is funny because that would suggest they should be recalling millions of units. I've just been buying new ones. 8 have been destroyed. There's nothing wrong with their hardware. Well, it's a bit weak to be so easily destroyed by software but it's more than fine for 99.9% of users I imagine. I went 12 years without a single virus, I think. But now...

I bought a new HP Pavilion laptop last night with only FreeDOS installed in the Recovery Partition. I've pretty much worked out the nature of what I'm battling; and I was resolved to not make the 'mistakes' I made last time. Immediately after purchase, I tried to get the Bluetooth adapter removed (http://i.imgur.com/dsLWy.jpg) - unfortunately, it's hardwired into the WLAN so that's a lesson for system number 9 (today). I got the technician to ensure Bluetooth was deactivated (hard and soft, I only deactivated hard for the MSI which lasted 5 min of non-use - of course that meant deactivating the wireless adapter completely, which we did). I then sat down in the mall with my kubuntu 10.10 CD from Canonical and installed the OS in a partition at the end of my 300GB drive. I made sure my HTC Desire was completely turned off, of course. There were no wireless cafes around.

By the time kubuntu had installed, my brand new laptop was corrupted. I swear to god. I still haven't come to terms with the implications of that; but I know my ISP are filthy rats. And they own the 3G / Edge / GPRS airwaves. ~my only theory...only heaven knows what they want with me, I certainly don't.

A good question you're thinking right now is how did I know it was corrupted. Well, for lots and lots of reasons - I've become relatively aware of "default values" as a result of installing hundreds of OS's onto zero-filled drives endlessly for four months. And I knew before kubuntu had even been installed that I was screwed; there's a message about PulseAudio being configured for per-user sessions or something which has been a dead give-away in my experience, then when kubuntu loaded and bluedevil was already killing my fully charged battery (20 min after purchase) trying to shut down my system with alerts about a profile called "" (yes, null) which wasn't configured (that would be an impressive trick, if I could configure it) - I threw the laptop aside in horror. I immediately ran the Recovery console, which failed of course. Navigating to the FreeDOS folder, I saw the smoking gun (screenshot taken just now, in ubuntu obviously, for reasons I shall include some images of shortly):

http://i.imgur.com/s6nVG.png

That...is a Windows Global Object. desktop.ini - a hidden AND invisible System file for the Vista kernel. Innocuous...when it's not being used as an attack vector. When it is, it will cover your system's folders with self-spawning copies and try to jump onto any CDs you burn or any flash drives you insert. All my systems are covered in them. Thousands of filthy Windows Objects which SysInternals picks up but none of the 'experts' seem to know anything about.

I detest Windows for many reasons, but Global Access Objects locked with Special Permissions for groups like "Everyone" and "Anonymous" and which I cannot touch with BUILTIN Administrator....permissions for my system folder / desktop / everywhere, really...I have thousands on these filthy things being silently installed with every 'clean' Windows installation.

http://i.imgur.com/cGt5H.png
http://i.imgur.com/lMFAx.png

The info2 file there I can't open in ubuntu but I could with Kate. That's a Windows ActiveX symbol signifying Global permissions.

In horror, I made my way home where - far too optimistically - I'd earlier unplugged every electronic device and piled them all up with batteries detached down the building hall hundreds of yards away. With my new router (my DLink DIR-655 was hacked and inaccessible - I created a 'protected' outside line with MAC rules for Access Control, NAT configured, firewall activated, etc). I then went online for the 'first' time with my new HP. Just wishful thinking, I guess (re: the effort to secure an already-corrupted system).

This was my 'online' experience. And part of the reason I haven't been able to even access this thread until now.

http://i.imgur.com/e05Ds.png

http://i.imgur.com/DlZee.png

Nothing I can do can get around the block there. With Google SSL is where it gets downright unnerving. I can - and have - been freely accessing my Google accounts completely 'protected' by their SSL. Today, I learned it's all been a horrifying joke.

I get diverted to this now when I enter https://encrypted.google.com:

http://i.imgur.com/1lAxR.png

I can 'safely' access https://gmail.com still. They've just worked on that page more completely. By 'they', I don't mean Google, of course. Well christ I hope not. I was getting sent to pages like this http://i.imgur.com/GWFvc.png (those links are all bogus, if it's not obvious) and this Experimental URL (which isn't even an active experiment): http://www.google.com/realtime?esrch=RealtimeLaunch::Experiment

So I tried to find a legit page to report it to Google and found a page that looked incredibly legit, with a public PGP-key listed for assurances. As the URL page talking about security wasn't https: and there were 1 or 2 peculiar things about it, on a hunch I 'googled' the Google public key hash. I don't think this is standard.

http://i.imgur.com/cSYx1.png

I have so much evidence, it's really quite ridiculous. I cover threads in it, on dozens of forums across the Internet. Most threads are censored by filthy corrupt mods (the PSI forum censorship was so unbelievably filthy corrupt...), even though I'm fawningly polite in the face of outrageous abuse from scum attempting to provoke a reaction in order to give them a 'reason' to censor. But this thread, for some reason, hasn't been touched by Microsoft - actually I've never had a thread on a Microsoft 'Community' forum censored, to their credit / apathy. This thread is the 'rudest' I've ever been, by a very long way - I've just had it up to here with filthy experts giving people provably corrupt 'workaround' advice whilst spamming their commercial links in signatures, and then getting abusive or going silent when you provide mountains of evidence, or challenge their sources. There is mountains of evidence which demands response from anyone marketing Windows in this thread:

http://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/FCSNext/thread/2a415c22-1f18-40b1-a77d-5d42af3099ce/#7adba91c-831b-4617-83a5-8f658351d157

Anyway, I'm about to get dumped in a manner something like this any moment now. I can predict the nature of these things. I'm...experienced. It will likely be many hours before I can get a system back online.

http://i.imgur.com/uqRyL.jpg

I have offered any expert stacks of cash to assist. None even interested. Anyone can remote access any of my desktops and they'll see the reality of the sickness in the .conf files.

I think...it's somewhat noteworthy that no experts are interested, in doing so.

Hi Paul, thanks for your response. I don't mean to come across like a jerk but I have incredibly massive problems here and cannot afford any more dismissals from experts who are...well, let's be diplomatic and merely assume they're lazy - I have strong reason to believe that's far too kind a label.

Yes, I can - in response to your question. But that will be hassle I don't have the time for. You should see the reaction of companies to evidence their 'Recovery' partitions have been corrupted. They try to blame it all on hardware drivers, which is funny because that would suggest they should be recalling millions of units. I've just been buying new ones. 8 have been destroyed. There's nothing wrong with their hardware. Well, it's a bit weak to be so easily destroyed by software but it's more than fine for 99.9% of users I imagine. I went 12 years without a single virus, I think. But now...

I bought a new HP Pavilion laptop last night with only FreeDOS installed in the Recovery Partition. I've pretty much worked out the nature of what I'm battling; and I was resolved to not make the 'mistakes' I made last time. Immediately after purchase, I tried to get the Bluetooth adapter removed (http://i.imgur.com/dsLWy.jpg) - unfortunately, it's hardwired into the WLAN so that's a lesson for system number 9 (today). I got the technician to ensure Bluetooth was deactivated (hard and soft, I only deactivated hard for the MSI which lasted 5 min of non-use - of course that meant deactivating the wireless adapter completely, which we did). I then sat down in the mall with my kubuntu 10.10 CD from Canonical and installed the OS  in a partition at the end of my 300GB drive. I made sure my HTC Desire was completely turned off, of course. There were no wireless cafes around.

By the time kubuntu had installed, my brand new laptop was corrupted. I swear to god. I still haven't come to terms with the implications of that; but I know my ISP are filthy rats. And they own the 3G / Edge / GPRS airwaves. ~my only theory...only heaven knows what they want with me, I certainly don't.

A good question you're thinking right now is how did I know it was corrupted. Well, for lots and lots of reasons - I've become relatively aware of "default values" as a result of installing hundreds of OS's onto zero-filled drives endlessly for four months. And I knew before kubuntu had even been installed that I was screwed; there's a message about PulseAudio being configured for per-user sessions or something which has been a dead give-away in my experience, then when kubuntu loaded and bluedevil was already killing my fully charged battery (20 min after purchase) trying to shut down my system with alerts about a profile called "" (yes, null) which wasn't configured (that would be an impressive trick, if I could configure it) - I threw the laptop aside in horror. I immediately ran the Recovery console, which failed of course. Navigating to the FreeDOS folder, I saw the smoking gun (screenshot taken just now, in ubuntu obviously, for reasons I shall include some images of shortly):

http://i.imgur.com/s6nVG.png

That...is a Windows Global Object. desktop.ini - a hidden AND invisible System  file for the Vista kernel. Innocuous...when it's not being used as an attack vector. When it is, it will cover your system's folders with self-spawning copies and try to jump onto any CDs you burn or any flash drives you insert. All my systems are covered in them. Thousands of filthy Windows Objects which SysInternals picks up but none of the 'experts' seem to know anything about.

I detest Windows for many reasons, but Global Access Objects locked with Special Permissions for groups like "Everyone" and "Anonymous" and which I cannot touch with BUILTIN Administrator....permissions for my system folder / desktop / everywhere, really...I have thousands on these filthy things being silently installed with every 'clean' Windows installation.

http://i.imgur.com/cGt5H.png
http://i.imgur.com/lMFAx.png

The info2 file there I can't open in ubuntu but I could with Kate. That's a Windows ActiveX symbol signifying Global permissions.

In horror, I made my way home where - far too optimistically - I'd earlier unplugged every electronic device and piled them all up with batteries detached down the building hall hundreds of yards away. With my new router (my DLink DIR-655 was hacked and inaccessible - I created a 'protected' outside line with MAC rules for Access Control, NAT configured, firewall activated, etc). I then went online for the 'first' time with my new HP. Just wishful thinking, I guess (re: the effort to secure an already-corrupted system).

This was my 'online' experience. And part of the reason I haven't been able to even access this thread until now.

http://i.imgur.com/e05Ds.png

http://i.imgur.com/DlZee.png

Nothing I can do can get around the block there. With Google SSL is where it gets downright unnerving. I can - and have - been freely accessing my Google accounts completely 'protected' by their SSL. Today, I learned it's all been a horrifying joke.

I get diverted to this now when I enter https://encrypted.google.com:

http://i.imgur.com/1lAxR.png

I can 'safely' access https://gmail.com still. They've just worked on that page more completely. By 'they', I don't mean Google, of course. Well christ I hope not. I was getting sent to pages like this http://i.imgur.com/GWFvc.png (those links are all bogus, if it's not obvious) and this Experimental URL (which isn't even an active experiment): http://www.google.com/realtime?esrch=RealtimeLaunch::Experiment

So I tried to find a legit page to report it to Google and found a page that looked incredibly legit, with a public PGP-key listed for assurances. As the URL page talking about security wasn't https: and there were 1 or 2 peculiar things about it, on a hunch I 'googled' the Google public key hash. I don't think this is standard.

http://i.imgur.com/cSYx1.png

I have so much evidence, it's really quite ridiculous. I cover threads in it, on dozens of forums across the Internet. Most threads are censored by filthy corrupt mods (the PSI forum censorship was so unbelievably filthy corrupt...), even though I'm fawningly polite in the face of outrageous abuse from scum attempting to provoke a reaction in order to give them a 'reason' to censor. But this thread, for some reason, hasn't been touched by Microsoft - actually I've never had a thread on a Microsoft 'Community' forum censored, to their credit / apathy. This thread is the 'rudest' I've ever been, by a very long way - I've just had it up to here with filthy experts giving people provably corrupt 'workaround' advice whilst spamming their commercial links in signatures, and then getting abusive or going silent when you provide mountains of evidence, or challenge their sources. There is mountains of evidence which demands response from anyone marketing Windows in this thread:

http://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/FCSNext/thread/2a415c22-1f18-40b1-a77d-5d42af3099ce/#7adba91c-831b-4617-83a5-8f658351d157

Anyway, I'm about to get dumped in a manner something like this any moment now. I can predict the nature of these things. I'm...experienced. It will likely be many hours before I can get a system back online.

http://i.imgur.com/uqRyL.jpg

I have offered any expert stacks of cash to assist. None even interested. Anyone can remote access any of my desktops and they'll see the reality of the sickness in the .conf files.

I think...it's somewhat noteworthy that no experts are interested, in doing so.

Revision history for this message

John Vincent (jonny-vincent) said on 2011-06-04:

#6

This is cute. Other way around, it's supposed to be...no? ubuntu, you guys want to chip in here? This is on a 14 hr old spanking new laptop which has had (and this list is in its entirety) the following installed on it:

- FreeDOS, by HP.
- kubuntu 10.10 from Canonical CD, by me.
- ubuntu 10.10 from Canonical CD, by me.

No other downloads.

These two screenshots were taken seconds apart obviously. Here, the hidden files are kind of hard to see.

http://i.imgur.com/94Hkc.png

Let's click that Show Hidden Folders button and get a better idea of what we're dealing with.

http://imgur.com/GjnMo

Well, that's much better isn't it? Nice and tidy. Why it feels almost Windows-ish. Hidden **and** Invisible. And Protected of course. After all, we're talking about System-Critical - personal preferences - files here. You could do some damage to your system, maybe even - gasp! face a traumatic reboot, or even shock! horror! a reinstall...if you delete your personal preference settings / Microsoft attack vectors.

It's funny because...you can't (delete them). They're too System-Critical for Microsoft to give you that kind of a weapon to stab yourself with. They're looking out for you.

Here is some kubuntu hacking, from when I was asleep. Does this gun smoke enough for you?

http://pastebin.com/pvCe0HHv

Once again, this is on a 14 hour old brand new HP Pavilion which has ONLY had FreeDOS, Canonical kubuntu and Canonical ubuntu installed on it. Maybe the HP guy - who I thought was an idiot - had a point....

[Friday, June 03, 2011 5:29 PM] -- Alock V says:
May I know the issue you experienced before the Canonical linux was installed on the unit?
[Friday, June 03, 2011 5:29 PM] -- Jonny says:
the issue, I experienced...
[Friday, June 03, 2011 5:29 PM] -- Jonny says:
without realising it...
[Friday, June 03, 2011 5:30 PM] -- Jonny says:
was that HP recovery is non-existent. HP cannot protect HP hardware
[Friday, June 03, 2011 5:30 PM] -- Jonny says:
from Bluetooth-communicated hardware corruption and destruction
[Friday, June 03, 2011 5:30 PM] -- Jonny says:
that's the ISSUE I'm asking you about now
[Friday, June 03, 2011 5:30 PM] -- Jonny says:
after it is RE-IMAGED, then what? What was WRONG with it the first time?
[Friday, June 03, 2011 5:32 PM] -- Jonny says:
I believe there is a pretty VALID question pending regarding some URLs?
[Friday, June 03, 2011 5:32 PM] -- Jonny says:
this URL continues to refresh as we talk http://h30429.www3.hp.com/index.jsp?fr_story=b36560ef8a3ab5be4648f1547d66a5a54bb2051b&rf=bm
[Friday, June 03, 2011 5:33 PM] -- Jonny says:
on this supposedly secure URL https://h50203.www5.hp.com/HPISWeb/Customer/ChatUser.aspx?User=John%20xxxxxx&caseID=11738665&callfrom=ispehomepage&region=AP&country=TH:Thailand&origin=acc
[Friday, June 03, 2011 5:33 PM] -- Alock V says:
For the issue with the URLS you need to check with the Canonical linux support.
[Friday, June 03, 2011 5:33 PM] -- Jonny says:
I'm sorry?
[Friday, June 03, 2011 5:33 PM] -- John Vincent says:
for HP URLs, I have to see Canonical?
[Friday, June 03, 2011 5:33 PM] -- Alock V says:
We do not support this as it is a third party platform where you are accessing the URls
[Friday, June 03, 2011 5:33 PM] -- Jonny says:
it's google chrome!
[Friday, June 03, 2011 5:34 PM] -- Jonny says:
where would you RECOMMEND i access your insecure URLs?
[Friday, June 03, 2011 5:34 PM] -- Alock V says:
I do not have any issues with the URls provided by you.
[Friday, June 03, 2011 5:34 PM] -- Jonny says:
it's google chrominum on a brand new HP laptop
[Friday, June 03, 2011 5:34 PM] -- Jonny says
what are you talking about???

---------

Well Canonical...? Was he an idiot or not? There appears to be some conjecture..

Feel free to remote into my laptop and confirm ANYTHING you wish. Or request I provide ANYTHING you wish to - assist - you. Who knows, maybe it will be some long overdue support for me as well...

Of course, I did pay for a guy to tell me to download from ubuntu.com - after I provided him with evidence as equally smoking as above. So maybe...the HP idiot had a point...

This is cute. Other way around, it's supposed to be...no? ubuntu, you guys want to chip in here? This is on a 14 hr old spanking new laptop which has had (and this list is in its entirety) the following installed on it:

- FreeDOS, by HP. 
- kubuntu 10.10 from Canonical CD, by me. 
- ubuntu 10.10 from Canonical CD, by me.

No other downloads.

These two screenshots were taken seconds apart obviously. Here, the hidden files are kind of hard to see.

http://i.imgur.com/94Hkc.png

Let's click that Show Hidden Folders button and get a better idea of what we're dealing with.

http://imgur.com/GjnMo

Well, that's much better isn't it? Nice and tidy. Why it feels almost Windows-ish. Hidden **and** Invisible. And Protected of course. After all, we're talking about System-Critical - personal preferences - files here. You could do some damage to your system, maybe even - gasp! face a traumatic reboot, or even shock! horror! a reinstall...if you delete your personal preference settings / Microsoft attack vectors.

It's funny because...you can't (delete them). They're too System-Critical for Microsoft to give you that kind of a weapon to stab yourself with. They're looking out for you.

Here is some kubuntu hacking, from when I was asleep. Does this gun smoke enough for you?

http://pastebin.com/pvCe0HHv

Once again, this is on a 14 hour old brand new HP Pavilion which has ONLY had FreeDOS, Canonical kubuntu and Canonical ubuntu installed on it. Maybe the HP guy - who I thought was an idiot - had a point....

[Friday, June 03, 2011 5:29 PM] -- Alock V says:
May I know the issue you experienced before the Canonical linux was installed on the unit?
[Friday, June 03, 2011 5:29 PM] -- Jonny says:
the issue, I experienced...
[Friday, June 03, 2011 5:29 PM] -- Jonny says:
without realising it...
[Friday, June 03, 2011 5:30 PM] -- Jonny says:
was that HP recovery is non-existent. HP cannot protect HP hardware
[Friday, June 03, 2011 5:30 PM] -- Jonny says:
from Bluetooth-communicated hardware corruption and destruction
[Friday, June 03, 2011 5:30 PM] -- Jonny says:
that's the ISSUE I'm asking you about now
[Friday, June 03, 2011 5:30 PM] -- Jonny says:
after it is RE-IMAGED, then what? What was WRONG with it the first time?
[Friday, June 03, 2011 5:32 PM] -- Jonny says:
I believe there is a pretty VALID question pending regarding some URLs?
[Friday, June 03, 2011 5:32 PM] -- Jonny says:
this URL continues to refresh as we talk http://h30429.www3.hp.com/index.jsp?fr_story=b36560ef8a3ab5be4648f1547d66a5a54bb2051b&rf=bm
[Friday, June 03, 2011 5:33 PM] -- Jonny says:
on this supposedly secure URL https://h50203.www5.hp.com/HPISWeb/Customer/ChatUser.aspx?User=John%20xxxxxx&caseID=11738665&callfrom=ispehomepage&region=AP&country=TH:Thailand&origin=acc
[Friday, June 03, 2011 5:33 PM] -- Alock V says:
For the issue with the URLS you need to check with the Canonical linux support.
[Friday, June 03, 2011 5:33 PM] -- Jonny says:
I'm sorry?
[Friday, June 03, 2011 5:33 PM] -- John Vincent says:
for HP URLs, I have to see Canonical?
[Friday, June 03, 2011 5:33 PM] -- Alock V says:
We do not support this as it is a third party platform where you are accessing the URls
[Friday, June 03, 2011 5:33 PM] -- Jonny says:
it's google chrome!
[Friday, June 03, 2011 5:34 PM] -- Jonny says:
where would you RECOMMEND i access your insecure URLs?
[Friday, June 03, 2011 5:34 PM] -- Alock V says:
I do not have any issues with the URls provided by you.
[Friday, June 03, 2011 5:34 PM] -- Jonny says:
it's google chrominum on a brand new HP laptop
[Friday, June 03, 2011 5:34 PM] -- Jonny says
what are you talking about???

---------

Well Canonical...? Was he an idiot or not? There appears to be some conjecture..

Feel free to remote into my laptop and confirm ANYTHING you wish. Or request I provide ANYTHING you wish to - assist - you. Who knows, maybe it will be some long overdue support for me as well...

Of course, I did pay for a guy to tell me to download from ubuntu.com - after I provided him with evidence as equally smoking as above. So maybe...the HP idiot had a point...

Revision history for this message

John Vincent (jonny-vincent) said on 2011-06-04:

#7

I'd love to hear from mycae.

I cannot do anything. How much power over Windows and Linux can one hacker have?

http://i.imgur.com/jzIO4.png

I realise it's my ISP. But they are only the largest ISP in the country so...

Hi mycae, if you catch this...it's not doing its job very well. But then, I knew that 4 months ago - and every day of the four months when people just like you ignored evidence I submitted and told me everything was normal. You should probably look at some of that evidence. It's really very abnormal.

Revision history for this message

mycae (mycae) said on 2011-06-04:

#8

Yes this is also normal. I too am not allowed to access that page by the compaq server. It is how the remote server is configured.

The correct URL you wish to access is probably:
http://h71028.www7.hp.com/enterprise/cache/309906-0-0-0-121.html?jumpid=go/linux

Try going to the compaq home page and searching for "linux".

Revision history for this message

mycae (mycae) said on 2011-06-04:

#9

Also, the hidden files are used to store user configuration. Try reading their contents with a text editor.

Revision history for this message

John Vincent (jonny-vincent) said on 2011-06-06:

#10

Are you actually pressing "Answered" when you submit these comments? Please stop doing that. I appreciate this might be amusing for you but I have serious problems and - well - fairly UNBELIEVABLY VALID questions that everyone is going silent about.

Please don't press "Answered" unless you actually answer the Question - the one in the Title. Just commenting on one of the 100 issues, and ignoring the 99 more glaring outstanding questions...it's helpful, and I thank you. But it's not an answer, it's...well, 1% of an answer.

I would absolutely love to know how a desktop.ini file (which I've been fighting for months on Windows machines) zapped it's way into a brand new HP Pavin with FreeDOS only, then Caninonical kubuntu 10.10 installed into a partition at the back of my 20 minute old hard drive.

http://i.imgur.com/r00HQ.png

I mean, unless Canonical CDs aren't burned properly - and that seems impossible - then it was zapped from a switched off mobile phone into the Recovery Partition of a brand new HP - which was not only not connected to any internet, all networking adapters were deactivated and I was sitting alone in the mall installing kubuntu offline. It's...surreal.

Thanks for the HP link - I went there only to find close to nothing helpful. Did I miss anything? I spent some time reading about guys who spend their time discussing how to punch through security holes (ostensibly "hacking for good"). I'm not sure about this. I see so much "hacking for good", all over the place, but with so many people discussing hacking for good, all I see are such gaping exploitable holes EVERYWHERE.

So the good isn't really being done, that I can see. Which leaves...? A lot of open discussion and people building up their hacking skills. Credit to them.

THEY'RE PRETTY FREAKING GOOD!!!

There was also a Custom Factory Specifications link which I got excited about, only to see it went to a dead page. Standard.

I really don't know what to do here. I've got Bluetooth geniuses and Linux coder geniuses (hackers for good, I'm sure) who are destroying my life and for reasons I cannot - begin - to even guess at. I'm literally just a dumb kid bum. They've got me mixed up with someone but whatever - what would you do in my position?

I was thinking the other day about trying to find a Linux forum genius, who could build me up a secure distribution which didn't have all the unnecessary exploitabilities that ships with an ubuntu or a kubuntu distribution. I really should give JoliCloud another go, they didn't seem to have gaping holes I don't think...but man I love kubuntu. When it's not serving as a bot-net for dozens of virtual terminals courtesy of the default (?) networking ridiculousness and virtualware installed for users that - if they ever needed it - could probably be expected to have the skills...to apt-get install xxx.

Can someone point me in the right direction for where I might find someone who packages custom builds? I'd just want something as fortified as Linux can get, with the tools kubuntu has (I think) that enable me to be easily alerted to breaches and altered files etc - "easily" is important. I'm still too retarded to download Skype without spending 30 minutes messing about feeling stupid trying to find a dot-point instructional list.

"Also, the hidden files are used to store user configuration. Try reading their contents with a text editor."

1. I'm more worried about the hundreds (or thousands) of hidden unix sockets and tunnels and mime nonsense and so on, than I am about hidden .conf files. Have you looked at the 18,000 lines of ~ losf I submitted for your benefit? That command was run on a freshly installed 'clean' kubuntu 10.10 OS, for which I selected the "Erase and use entire disk" option. There are far more concerning things there than hidden .conf files.

2. And why do .conf files have to be hidden, may I ask? Why do any files have to ever be hidden? And why - oh why mycae - did you fail to understand the nature of the two screenshots? Have a look at them again, back and forth, see if you can't rustle up the nature of it all. Hint: look at the tick / unticked "Show Hidden" boxes.

3. But of course I have looked at the files; hidden, double hidden, non-hidden, non-Linux / non-Windows / unknown files (with far less success when they're UNKNOWN to Linux, of course). That begs the question of why they're on my Linux systems, but there are more important outstanding questions being avoided.

4. If you want to look at the files, you may do so. You will see very quickly that they have been commented out. Not by me. Quite frankly, too elegantly commented out...to be my work. And - of course - if I was going to spend the time commenting out .conf files, I probably wouldn't set them up perfectly....for the hackers. Like mine are.