Linux-Advocacy Digest #675, Volume #25 Fri, 17 Mar 00 19:13:07 EST
Contents:
Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re:Darwin or Linux
("Terry Wilcox")
Re: An Illuminating Anecdote (Gary Hallock)
Re: Linux Virus Info Enclosed (mlw)
Re: An Illuminating Anecdote (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Salary? (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re:Darwin or Linux
(Koan Kid)
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse ("Drestin Black")
Re: Linux Virus Info Enclosed ("Drestin Black")
Re: Linux Virus Info Enclosed (mlw)
Re: A pox on the penguin? (Linux Virus Epidemic) ("Drestin Black")
Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re:Darwin or Linux
(JEDIDIAH)
Re: Linux Virus Info Enclosed (mlw)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Terry Wilcox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re:Darwin or
Linux
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 16:15:07 -0700
"JEDIDIAH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On 17 Mar 2000 15:19:30 -0600, Jonathan W Hendry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >Email addresses don't carry much context. I have this account
> >because I took a night class at DePaul two years ago.
> >And I paid my own way through college, thanks.
> That's as much ether as anything else here. We would have
> to take you at your word. Whereas, the identity you are
> advertising is associated with academia.
I was thinking about this earlier, how we have to take Usenet users at their
word for the experience and knowledge.
With Jonathan it's easy. He uses his real name and he has a long history of
posting, particularly in the comp.sys.next.* groups. www.deja.com has posts
by Jonathan from 1995, so you can check his credentials.
Then there's Mike Paquette, whom you referred to as a "wanker" IIRC. You
might want to read his old posts before you act like you're more
knowledgeable.
The problem is that I can't find any posts by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
before this year, so I have to assume you're new to Usenet. The website you
point to in your .sig is just a bunch of links, I don't see anything that
could be construed as written by you.
And I haven't seen a shred of technical knowledge in your Usenet posts, just
a bunch of anti-Apple rants. You also resort to insults whenever somebody
questions or doubts your knowledge.
To summarize, both Jonathan and Mike established their credentials in Usenet
a long time ago. They're both known to be knowledgeable and reasonable. You
simply don't fall into that category.
> Even if we take you at your word, you're still a mooch.
See, insults.
Terry Wilcox
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (or if you're "email-address-reflects-your-credentials
obsessive, [EMAIL PROTECTED], but don't use this address
(ands remove the nospamplease), the mail goes through Lotus Notes (ick))
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 18:27:15 -0500
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: An Illuminating Anecdote
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> What exactly is the difference between the OS crashing, and X crashing? In
> both cases you will lose all the open apps and the work you were doing with
> no chance of saving it.
If X crashes, you only lose GUI apps that were connected to that instance of
the X server. All programs running in background, daemons, other users who
are remotely logged on, and other logon sessions that I have (using
Ctrl-Alt-F*, which can even have their own instance of an X sever running) -
all of these will be unaffected by X crashing. If I start a long job in
background that is going to take many hours to run ( typical with the kind of
work I do) and X somehow manages to crash, that long running job keeps on
going.
Gary
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux Virus Info Enclosed
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 18:26:10 -0500
Drestin Black wrote:
>
> "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Christopher Smith wrote:
> > >
> > > "Nico Coetzee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > tony roth wrote:
> > > >
> > > > How about a non-power user receiving a Word document infected with one
> of
> > > the
> > > > many Macro Virii via e-mail? Not all virii depend on power user access
> > > rights.
> > >
> > > But it still can't do any more damage than that user's rights allow.
> >
> > But most users need to run as power users, or local admin, so as much
> > damage as it wishes.
>
> again, most users do NOT need to run as power user and almost never as
> admin. What NT have YOU used? I do not have a single user on the floor
> running as power user. If they need that for something, they are calling IT
> for that task. We run a tight ship. Which is why I never ever see a BSOD or
> have crashes or viruses. We actually use our products correctly.
Microsoft can't even figure out how to get their own apps working for a
lowly user, two URLs I gave as an example:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/devprods/vs6/vbasic/vb98/vbmsgwcadminprivileges.htm
http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q243/3/47.ASP
Prove this.
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 95, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: An Illuminating Anecdote
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 23:33:10 GMT
On Fri, 17 Mar 2000 16:07:09 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>mr_organic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> You need to put down that giant crack pipe you've been smoking and take
>> a look at the market. Linux has grown so enormously in the last couple
>> of years because Windows apps *are not* superior, especially on the
>> server side. Windows is a buggy, obscure, badly-designed mess.
>
>Wait. You're claiming that Linux apps of several years ago are superior to
>all windows apps, and this is why Linux is growing?
"superior" is typically ill defined in these parts. So baldly
claiming that foo is superior than bar doesn't have any
informational content to begin with. Furthermore, "! superior",
strictly speaking, does not mean inferior. Finally, the fellow
was stressing server applications. That particular area is not
NT's forte. Whereas it is Unix's forte, and for the most part
a Linux server app is just a Unix server app.
>
>I think you're the one with the crack pipe. Linux is growing because of a
>philosophy, not because the quality is better. It is getting better all the
>time, but the quality is not the reason it's growing.
Certainly it must have parity. Otherwise, corporations with
money to spend would be willing to spend it on better solutions.
This is especially the case when NT has all the 'manager mindshare'
and the large marketing budgets.
To compete against WinDOS, you not only have to be better but better
and cheaper. Sometimes, even better and cheaper isn't enough.
>
>> Visual C++ runs on Windows and *only* on Windows. GCC has been ported to
>> nearly every computer I can think of (and probably more that I've never
>> heard of). Furthermore, Visual C++ is inseperable from its atrocious
>> IDE and MFC underpinnings, both of which are disasters. Molest me not
>> with your idiotic Visual C++ maunderings. Windows programmers with a
>> clue use Borland C++ Builder (or Cygwin and GCC!).
>
>Visual C++ has a command line compiler, which is called by the IDE. You
>don't need to use the IDE or MFC to use this. You don't seem to know what
>you're talking about.
Much of what code value Visual C++ delivers is indeed imbedded
in the IDE. The compiler itself (msvc) is typically not what
is claimed to be functionally superior to gcc and friends by
NT boosters.
>
>> If you think Office and Internet Exploiter are great products, feel free
>> to suffer with them for the rest of your miserable, drone-like life. We
>> want something better. If we don't like StarOffice (I don't), we use Abi
>> Word or WordPerfect for word-processing, Gnumeric or Wingz for
>spreadsheets,
>> and so on. And *our* software is Free; we didn't have to rip a CD from a
>> Warez board because we couldn't afford the usurious fees M$ charges for
>> Office.
>
>Not all of it is free, especially if used commercially. QT costs in excess
>of $1000 for commercial use, and that's just a GUI toolkit.
That product is rather the exception than the rule.
Everything else mentioned above is cheaper than it's Win32
payware counterparts, especially msoffice.
StarOffice is just plain gratis.
>
>> > which did simply exited if the condition occurred. Even the X Windows
>> > server does not properly handle failed allocations, and simply exits
>> > (bringing down the entire desktop along with it) when the condition
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>> but doesn't crash the whole OS, as happens with Windows
>
>What exactly is the difference between the OS crashing, and X crashing? In
Everything not X keeps on chugging along quite nicely. This means
that if you view X as a problem you can isolate certain applications
from it.
>both cases you will lose all the open apps and the work you were doing with
>no chance of saving it.
Actually, if all that happens is that an Xclient loses it's
server connection, it should be able to clean up reasonably
well. Not entirely sure however...
>
>> For someone whose programming knowledge is as limited as your own, I'd
>> be a little careful accepting anything you have to say at face value.
>> I'd be willing to bet that your reading of the code was as losing as
>> your other programming efforts.
>
>Or as "losing" as your knowledge of VC++?
>
>> You know, according to you, Unix *ought* to be more crashy than Windows.
>> And yet, if you look at any of the uptime monitors, Unix beats Windows
>> into a cocked hat. Unix has proven itself over the years to be an
>> extremely stable and well-engineered software platform. That's why
>> large businesses, governments, and universities use it.
>
>Uptimes matter little if you still lose all your work due to buggy apps and
>GUI's.
Oddly enough, I seem to have more problems of that kind under NT,
despite the fact that the apps I run under NT are presumably
'more production' than the ones I run under Linux.
--
So long as Apple uses Quicktime to effectively |||
make web based video 'Windows only' Club, / | \
Apple is no less monopolistic than Microsoft.
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Salary?
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 23:35:22 GMT
On 17 Mar 2000 21:58:11 GMT, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 17 Mar 2000 18:55:45 GMT, Ian Mac Lure wrote:
>>In comp.os.linux.misc Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>: On Wed, 15 Mar 2000 02:27:35 GMT, Christopher Browne wrote:
>> I have no idea what property goes for in rural Ireland though.
>
>I'm from Australia. WHen I lived there a 3 yrs ago, I could get a place
>about 1k from the middle of the city (Melbourne)for $54 per week ( ie $108
>total for a two bedroom apartment ) Keep in mind that this is Australian
>dollars ( so it's about $75/week US )
1K from city center may or may not be a good thing...
--
So long as Apple uses Quicktime to effectively |||
make web based video 'Windows only' Club, / | \
Apple is no less monopolistic than Microsoft.
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: Koan Kid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re:Darwin or
Linux
Date: 17 Mar 2000 23:39:12 GMT
In comp.sys.mac.advocacy JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spake thusly:
> On 17 Mar 2000 01:35:27 GMT, Koan Kid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>In comp.sys.mac.advocacy JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spake thusly:
>>> On Thu, 16 Mar 2000 16:17:14 -0600, mr_organic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>>>Nope -- I feel the same way. The Lesstif project is a great example; rather
>>>>than bitch and moan that Motif was proprietary (or *in addition to* bitching
>>>>and moaning that Motif was proprietary), these guys went off and knocked off
>>>>a great clone of the system. Now Lesstif is probably installed on more
>>
>>> Oh how assinine. We're not talking about just another open standard
>>> in this case. That is what Motif is, and what OpenStep is. THAT is
>>> why it is reasonable to expect a few college kids to get together
>>> and clone the things.
>>
>>> Apple is shoving content down our throats that some of us can't
>>> decode and won't bother to provide the tools or the information
>>> to decode that information.
>>
>>The point you're missing is that it may not be Apple's to provide. (I'm
> Actually they do infact 'own' control of the codec.
Which codec are we talking about here?
> [deletia]
>>>>Open Source software can't just be about the easy stuff -- we have to buckle
>>>>down and tackle the really hard projects to make it work.
>>
>>> Ultimately, the most sensible course of action is to
>>> move the market away from vendorlock that forces those
>>> of us that would like to have reasonable free will in
>>> our buying choices to essentially 'steal' someone else's
>>> patented work without their permission.
>>
>>I agree that moving away from "vendorlock," as you put it, is probably a
>>good thing and I think that the free software and open source movements
>>a doing a pretty goo job of demonstrating the advantages of that model.
>>Where we seem to disagree, however, is in the notion that freedom of
>>choice is dependent on "freedom of source." Even if the protocol or
> This has nothing to do with freedom of source today. It has to
> do with freedom to access one's encapsulated information. That
> is considerably different and a morally distinct thing from
> having access to the source to one's applications.
Well, assuming that it is *your* information, then you should have the
original unencoded data. Complaining about Apple not providing you with
the information you need to "access" (by this, do you mean "modify"?) the
encoded stream makes as much sense as complaining about a compiler vendor
not providing you with the tools to "access" object code. In order to
"access" your object files, it is assumed that you have the original source
and can either modify that or compile it with the appropriate options to
allow another tool to make sense of it. Perhaps I misunderstood your
complaint, but it sounds to me like you want to "access" someone else's
information.
>>"standard" in question is proprietary, you still have the freedom not to
>>purchase or use it. In fact, if you feel strongly about it, you have
> That is assinine.
> No, I am not free to merely not use it.
> I am free to 'do without', but that can hardly be considered
> 'liberty' in any real sense. This sort of 'freedom' is no less
> 'freedom' than beind 'free' to use WinDOS or 'do without'.
That is the way the world works. If you want to play in their sandbox,
you have to play by their rules. I don't really see how you are being
compelled to use it. It is the same choice you have with any other
consumer product. If I want to watch television, I must buy a TV (or
some other receiver). Or do without.
>>the freedom to try and convince others to follow your lead. And they
>>have the freedom to ignore you.
>>
>>> Apple is merely acting the part of monopolist and you are
>>> just providing weak excuses for them.
>>
>>Of course they have a monopoly on their property. Why shouldn't they?
> It's contrary to public policy and quite possibly a violation
> of the Sherman Anti Trust act.
I don't think you're interpreting the anti-trust statutes correctly, but
then I'm not a lawyer. Still, it's my understanding that, if I invent a
new widget or own a copyright, no one can compel me to make that
information available to others for use. Perhaps you can explain how
you think the Sherman Anti-Trust Act applies in this case?
>>If they spent the time and money to create it, they should have the
>>final say in how they dispose of it. Wouldn't you want the same
>>consideration?
> I'm not a megalomaniac. If I invented something, the intent
> would not to be to use it as a method of control. Sure, I
> would prefer to get paid. However, I wouldn't use my own work
> as a tool for exclusion.
How does Apple's current policy WRT QuickTime exert any method of control
over you? I'm afraid I don't understand your point.
> They can provide access themselves or allow others to do it
> for them under NDA. This isn't even a 'you must share the
> source situation'.
But there is no law that compels them to offer this information in any
form. Please explain.
KK
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 23:17:42 GMT
On Fri, 17 Mar 2000 16:02:21 -0600, Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>abraxas wrote:
>>
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Microsoft gave away 120k copies of w2k for nothing.
>
>
>... and it didn't cost them a thing!
>
>They'll sue Spain anyway I'm sure.
nah. They'll make it all back and then some by charging for dot releases
and for all the copies of mickysoft office that'll inevitably have to be
replaced as the old version will run like shit.
Not unlike a drug dealer giving out free samples.
--
I didn't do it! Nobody saw anything! You can't prove anything! -- bart
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 18:39:43 -0500
"abraxas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8au4a8$ils$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> > "Mr. Rupert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>
> >> Nothing worse than being stopped at a red light only to have a bum
> >> attempt to wash your windshield and hand you a W2K CD.
>
> > no, you're mistaken - W2K is not being given away free... the only OS I
can
> > think of that fits your description is Linux. The bum may have realized
that
> > no want accepts Linux CDs but would take a W2K copy in a heartbeat.
>
> Not true. A popular PC magazine was recently given 120,000 w2k disks by
> microsoft that they THOUGHT were the 120 day eval version. It turns out
they
> werent; they were the full version. Alot of people in Spain are very
happy.
>
> Microsoft gave away 120k copies of w2k for nothing.
MS didn't - the spanish magazine did - MS didn't make the CDs, they did.
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux Virus Info Enclosed
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 18:40:47 -0500
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Drestin Black wrote:
> >
> > "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Christopher Smith wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Nico Coetzee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > tony roth wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > How about a non-power user receiving a Word document infected with
one
> > of
> > > > the
> > > > > many Macro Virii via e-mail? Not all virii depend on power user
access
> > > > rights.
> > > >
> > > > But it still can't do any more damage than that user's rights allow.
> > >
> > > But most users need to run as power users, or local admin, so as much
> > > damage as it wishes.
> >
> > again, most users do NOT need to run as power user and almost never as
> > admin. What NT have YOU used? I do not have a single user on the floor
> > running as power user. If they need that for something, they are calling
IT
> > for that task. We run a tight ship. Which is why I never ever see a BSOD
or
> > have crashes or viruses. We actually use our products correctly.
>
> Microsoft can't even figure out how to get their own apps working for a
> lowly user, two URLs I gave as an example:
>
>
>
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/devprods/vs6/vbasic/vb98/vbmsgwcadminprivi
leges.htm
> http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q243/3/47.ASP
>
> Prove this.
>
what is it that is "broken" that they can't get working? these apps are
designed to work in this way - what is your point?
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux Virus Info Enclosed
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 18:40:30 -0500
Nik Simpson wrote:
>
> "Mr. Rupert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > abraxas wrote:
> >
> > > According to Microsoft, Windows 2000 Professional may hang after you
> > > install Microsoft IntelliPoint 2.2. Microsoft says that pressing
> > > CTRL-ALT-DELETE will not help. To resolve this problem, Microsoft says
> you
> > > have to reinstall Windows 2000 Professional.
> >
> > This one is a real beaut and will forever keep Microsoft OSs in the Mickey
> > Mouse league.
> >
> Intellipoint 2.2 is a very old version of the software, it's currently at
> 3.1, installing old device drivers on new releases of OS is often a problem,
> and one not limited to MS. Of course the current version of IntelliPoint
> works just fine.
It's Microsoft's product, it's Microsoft OS, you would think that they
would have tested this and have a work around before shipping the OS.
No other name for it, "MickeySoft NT."
>
> --
> Nik Simpson
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 95, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A pox on the penguin? (Linux Virus Epidemic)
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 18:42:24 -0500
"Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Drestin Black wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > did I say su to root? no.
>
> You certainly implied su to root:
>
>
> > So, Tim Kelley states that NO ONE has/uses root access in Linux -
because
> > that is a security risk. So, no one needs or get root. But they use SU
all
> > the time....
> >
> > laughs last that laughs best...
>
> That sounds to me that you don't believe most users don't need to su to
> root. That "laughs last that laughs best" says it all.
we all know su isn't just to root - but that doesn't change anything.
>
>
> >
> >
> > besides, did you even read the link at the bottom where it lists and
> > describes and even provides working examples of linux virus?
>
> Yes I did and it requires su root to work.
>
so, you NEVER su to root?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.next.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re:Darwin or
Linux
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 23:43:11 GMT
On Fri, 17 Mar 2000 17:30:55 -0500, Arun Gupta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>www.terran.com (http://www.terran.com/CodecCentral/Codecs/Sorenson.html)
>sells a product (Media Cleaner Pro) that includes the Sorenson encoder
>(not the decoder).
>
>Therefore, either Terran is a subsidiary of Apple, or else Apple does
>not
>have a license lock on Sorenson. I'm assuming that if you know how the
>encoder works, you can figure out how the decoder ought to work.
Actually, it looks like they just repackage what sorenson
produces. Although, It does bring up the possibility of
trying to use the NT x86 version of the codec/lib under
another OS.
>
>-arun gupta
>
>JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>
>> On 17 Mar 2000 13:55:06 -0600, Jonathan W Hendry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >In comp.sys.next.advocacy JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> This is why we chuckle at Apple when they claim to give away
>> >> BSD and not their hypocrisy when they do so the day after the
>> >> first TPM trailer was snugly vendorlocked away from anyone
>> >> who contributed to the BSD codebase.
>> >
>> >How tragic that people were kept from viewing the trailer for
>> >a bad movie. Tragic.
>>
>> That's just one instance of a larger problem. Just because
>> you feel that you can indulge in weak handwaving doesn't
>> alter the issue.
>>
>> I'm glad my previous generation didn't have such cavalier
>> attitudes when it came to free access to information.
>>
>> >
>> >However, as has been explained, the codec is the issue, and
>> >that isn't Apple's to give away.
>>
>> Apple's the one with the exclusive licence. They could
>> certainly give it away in binary form. They do that
>> already. Sorenson can't because of the exclusive licence
>> they have with Apple.
>>
>> That was a deal worthy of Microsoft.
>>
>> --
>>
>> So long as Apple uses Quicktime to effectively |||
>> make web based video 'Windows only' Club, / | \
>> Apple is no less monopolistic than Microsoft.
>>
>> Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
--
So long as Apple uses Quicktime to effectively |||
make web based video 'Windows only' Club, / | \
Apple is no less monopolistic than Microsoft.
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux Virus Info Enclosed
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 18:45:06 -0500
Drestin Black wrote:
>
> "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Drestin Black wrote:
> > >
> > > Here you go:
> > >
> > > http://www.big.net.au/~silvio/
> > >
> > > Feel free to spread this everywhere - especially the Linux viruses
> there -
> > > cause the linvocates (never wrong) have assured us that it's impossible
> to
> > > have a linux virus so I'm sure they won't mind running these binaries.
> > >
> > > Enjoy!
> > Riddle: When is a virus not a virus? When it requires the informed
> > consent of the user. The virus requires root access to infect the
> > system, unlike WIndows, where ANY piece of code can infect your system.
> > In Windows NT, where most people run as, at least, power user, any piece
> > of code will infect NT as well.
> >
> > In UNIX, it is unusual for a user to run as a root without a specific
> > task.
> >
>
> ahhh... you live in a programmers dream of what it's really like out there.
> I have quite a few guys working for me that think like you. they can code
> like freaks but their user interfaces suck because they think like
> programmers and admins but not like users. As linux tries to make itself
> into the mainstream more and more will run as root ("why should I use su all
> the time, why not just run as root?" typically).
>
> Where in the world to you get the idea that most people run NT as admin or
> power user?
Actually, from Microsoft's own recommendations in the knowledge base for
running Microsoft's own apps.
>I run as power user cause I am. I keep everyone else below that.
> the only place I run admin is at the console doing a specific task.
> Otherwise I use runas/su where necessary.
>
> So, i guess we'll agree that crap like BackOriface is not a virus either. It
> takes running an application to install itself. Running an application is
> concent to run it right? Oh, it's a trojan attached to the application you
> thought you were running? uh huh... :)
Clue famine.
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 95, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
