Linux-Advocacy Digest #362, Volume #26 Thu, 4 May 00 12:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Applix 5.0 it's getting better! (Roberto Alsina)
X-configurator won't start....> help? (snowball)
Re: Introduction to Linux article for commentary (Mark Evans)
Re: KDE is better than Gnome (Roberto Alsina)
Re: KDE is better than Gnome (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Sofware paztents and Micro$oft history (Donal K. Fellows)
Virus on the net? (Martijn Bruns)
Re: X-configurator won't start....> help? (Stephen Cornell)
Re: Who is "S"?? (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Who is "S"?? (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: X-configurator won't start....> help? (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (Craig Kelley)
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (Craig Kelley)
Re: X Windows must DIE!!! (Stefaan A Eeckels)
Re: Who is "S"?? (Craig Kelley)
Re: Virus on the net? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Virus on the net? (Craig Kelley)
Re: Virus on the net? (No Name)
Re: Virus on the net? (2:1)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Applix 5.0 it's getting better!
Date: Thu, 04 May 2000 14:02:06 GMT
In article <8eq1sv$hr$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matthias Warkus wrote:
> > It was the Tue, 2 May 2000 21:59:33 +0200...
> > > Probably KDE at the moment has less than 1/3 of the developers of
Gnome..
> >
> > Very improbable, considering they had about four times as much as
> > GNOME in mid-1999.
>
> Are you sure of this. I read somewhere last autumn that there were
about
> 200 Gnome vs around 50-60 KDE developers working on the core
libraries.
> The volume of posts in the gnome and kde lists also indicate that
there are
> more developers (or rather more posters) working on Gnome.
I will put my $0.02 (convertible argentinian pesos, equals the same
worth in dollars) by saying that anyone who tells you "we have X people
working in the Y free software project" is telling only half of the
story.
It's not the same having Torben Weis than having me (by about a order
of magnitude in Torben's favor) and it's not the same having me today
as it was having me in february (by about a 500% in favour of me in
february).
2000 people sending 10 line patches is not much.
In a more general note: noone really has any idea how many are
working in KDE, or GNOME, or emacs, for that matter.
If you want to know, there are 363 persons who have write access to
KDE's CVS. I am one, and I have not committed anything there in over a
year (since I moved my projects off to sourceforge).
> Dont get me wrong.. i prefer KDE over Gnome anyday for stability and
> "artistic" reasons and use KDE daily :-)
Don't get him wrong, Mr. Warkus prefers GNOME very much :-)
> > > that could and will probably change very quick once Kylix is out.
> >
> > Is Kylix KDE-specific? Eeeek...! Evil.
>
> Nah.. but it will use Qt as the /(one of ?) toolkit.
Well, I expect that as soon as Kylix is out, if it's usable for free
software development, some kind soul will provide KDE support for it :-)
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: snowball <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: X-configurator won't start....> help?
Date: Thu, 04 May 2000 07:59:57 -0700
I just installed Redhat6.2, then I try to adjust the resolution
(Currently...1100x750 something like that). When I click(or/double
click) Xconfigurator (/user/x11r6/bin), nothing happens!!. I've tried
this 20 times....... Any input from linux guru?? TIA
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
------------------------------
From: Mark Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.os.linux,uk.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Introduction to Linux article for commentary
Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 15:14:46 +0100
William Palfreman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> something *to* someone else that they didn't agree too. Desperatly trying
> to get back on topic, It is nobody's business but mine what OS I run on my
> computer, but if I go about forcing people to install Redhat at gunpoint,
> then there is a public interest involved - hence laws. Now Redhat may be a
Should this apply to say a large telecoms company saying, "We will only
offer you a certain fast IP service if you run a specific OS (even though
there are off the shelf OS independent options)"?
--
Mark Evans
St. Peter's CofE High School
Phone: +44 1392 204764 X109
Fax: +44 1392 204763
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.windows.x.kde,tw.bbs.comp.linux
Subject: Re: KDE is better than Gnome
Date: Thu, 04 May 2000 14:07:52 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok, sorry, but I'll go a bit offtopic for the thread :-)
> /opt/enlightenment/bin/enlightenment depends on 20 libraries;
> /opt/gnome/bin/panel depends on 31;
> /opt/gnome/bin/nautilus even depends on 44.
Hey, interesting numbers! Just for kicks:
[ralsina@server ralsina]$ ldd `which kwm` |wc -l
10
[ralsina@server ralsina]$ ldd `which kwin` |wc -l
17
[ralsina@server ralsina]$ ldd `which kicker` |wc -l
19
[ralsina@server ralsina]$ ldd `which kpanel` |wc -l
10
[ralsina@server ralsina]$ ldd `which konqueror`|wc -l
22
I'll remember this the next time people say KDE's components are too
interdependent ;-)
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.windows.x.kde,tw.bbs.comp.linux
Subject: Re: KDE is better than Gnome
Date: Thu, 04 May 2000 14:19:32 GMT
In article <8emirp$68t$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows) wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH) writes:
> > The interface didn't have to change. KDE and GNOME are both to a
> > certain degree 'wrapper' libraries. There's no need for either of
> > them to be hung up on implementation details of underlying
> > interfaces when presenting it's own interface. Even if Xdnd is in
> > some way rather bizarre in comparison to Motif DnD or Offix DnD
> > there should be some 'simple' mode of interopability that could be
> > achieved with minimum impact. Motif dnd, for example, has several
> > types of interaction and clients can choose to implement a only
> > subset.
>
> Xdnd does a *lot* more than Offix DnD, and is considerably less
> blecherous and more robust than Motif DnD (though it does fractionally
> less without an extra protocol layer on top.) It is possible to
> support both Xdnd and the Offix protocol simultaneously[*], and if you
> only take advantage of a subset of the functionality available, you
> can use the same application code for all three basic protocols (by
> abstracting the differences within the library.)
>
> A few links on this matter can be found at:
> http://purl.org/thecliff/tcl/wiki/DragAndDrop
>
> Donal.
> [* Motif and Xdnd can probably be shoehorned together, but it is not
> easy to do at all. The state of the documentation on Motif doesn't
> help either. ]
In fact, Qt 2.1 has support for Xdnd and Motif dnd.
***********************************************************/
/* Motif Drag&Drop Dynamic Protocol messaging API code */
/* Only requires Xlib layer - not MT safe */
/* Author: Daniel Dardailler, [EMAIL PROTECTED] */
/* Adapted by : Matt Koss, [EMAIL PROTECTED] */
/* Further adaptions by : Troll Tech AS */
/***********************************************************
And yes, according to the code, it doesn't look like it was very easy
:-)
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Subject: Re: Sofware paztents and Micro$oft history
Date: 4 May 2000 14:40:14 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
CAguy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Anyway, I just tried to pick out the obvious ones (there
> are tons more). As you can see, if MS wanted to shut
> down the entire software industry (or at least a good
> portion of it) it could. But I don't think they have any
> intention of enforcing these patents. They are defensive
> patents for the most part. MS has specifically said they
> won't enforce the CSS one.
How many of those patents would stand up to a sustained court battle
is questionable (what was the date on the GUI slider control patent?
I feel certain they were around pre-1996...) but if they aren't going
to try to enforce them then it matters very little, since at least no
other bunch of patent-happy jerks are going to try cashing in on the
obvious.
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- I may seem more arrogant, but I think that's just because you didn't
realize how arrogant I was before. :^)
-- Jeffrey Hobbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: Martijn Bruns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Virus on the net?
Date: Thu, 04 May 2000 16:52:40 +0200
Has anyone heard of a new virus on the net?
It's called 'I Love U'. (or something that sounds like that) and
it seems to be infecting a LOT of companies around the globe
right now!
Also, it seems to infect Windows PC's running Outlook (Express?).
It was on the radio surrounded by a mild case of panic :-)
Does someone know more about it? Could something like this affect
Linux-machines also?
------------------------------
From: Stephen Cornell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: X-configurator won't start....> help?
Date: 04 May 2000 15:57:05 +0100
snowball <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I just installed Redhat6.2, then I try to adjust the resolution
> (Currently...1100x750 something like that). When I click(or/double
> click) Xconfigurator (/user/x11r6/bin), nothing happens!!. I've tried
> this 20 times....... Any input from linux guru?? TIA
Xconfigurator needs to run within a terminal, so clicking it from
Gnome or KDE won't work. Also, you need to be root to use
Xconfigurator. Switch to a text console by ctrl-alt-f1 and log on as
root. You can switch back to X by ctrl-alt-f7. You could also simply
start your favourite terminal emulator (xterm, rxvt, konsole,
gnome-terminal) and then type `su - root'. You can now run
Xconfigurator by typing `Xconfigurator'. Incidentally, there are
alternative programs that may work better such as XF86Setup.
When Xconfigurator asks to probe your hardware, you should probably
answer `no' because you're (presumably) already running X. I take it
that, when you log out, you are seeing the graphical login program,
xdm (or similar), which uses X. You can disable the automatic
graphical login, and shut X down, by logging on as root and entering
the command `/sbin/telinit 3', which switches to run level 3. To get
back to the graphical login, use `/sbin/telinit 5'.
--
Stephen Cornell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel/fax +44-1223-336644
University of Cambridge, Zoology Department, Downing Street, CAMBRIDGE CB2 3EJ
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Who is "S"??
Date: Thu, 04 May 2000 14:59:37 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on Thu, 04 May 2000 03:04:20 -0400 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
>> and generally being super-stupid-ignorant and a Microsoft cheerleader,
>> in the worst sort of way (he'd severely embarrass most of the current
>> Winvocates, IMO). I doubt he'd even know how to write a decent
>> Basic program (never mind C, C++, Java, Tcl/Tk, Eiffel, or Smalltalk).
>> Even LOGO might have been too hard for him :-).
>
>Don't forget Perl and Modula-3. :-)
DOH! I knew I forgot a language in there! Never have worked with
Modula 3 (as I understand it, it's Pascal Beefcake :-) ), but I like
to use Perl 4 (never got around to learning the OO variant) on occasion.
>I've been taking a look at Perl
>lately, and WOW! The darned thing looks like there's so much stuff
>that's been added to it over the years. I've been reading about how
>to embed Perl into C programs; I think there's some function calls
>provided for that.
Check out 'man perlcall', or its equivalent. I haven't tried this
myself, but it looks simple enough, with the right include files.
(It would be nice if they actually *mention* the include files,
though.)
>Also, we may see the day when Perl applets will
>rival Java applets, since they both are capable of compiling into
>bytecode, and a lot of sites already use Perl for various things,
>including cgi scripts.
Indeed; php, as I understand it, is an embedded Perl interpreter
in Apache. (Correct me if I'm wrong, please. :-) ) This avoids the
overhead of a process fork() without losing the functionality
inherent in Perl.
>It'll be interesting to see, since Perl has
>had some object-oriented HTML extensions put in, and there's also a
>graphics Perl lib AFAIK.
Perl/Tk has been out for awhile now. Nice package, although I
for one haven't gotten around to learning it myself. (I use
Tcl/Tk; Tcl is absolutely brain-dead as a language, but Tk makes
up for it. :-) )
>
>Larry Wall looks like he's trapped in the early 70's as far as style
>is concerned. :-)
>
>> though -- although it can't be horribly difficult for someone who
>> knows C++ intimately, Java quite well, Fortran, COBOL, various assemblers,
>
>I think programming in Java can help a person's C++ programming
>skills, and vice versa. Or, do you think knowing one hurts your
>programming skills in the other? I know C++ and Java a quite
>different in a lot of respects, but on the surface, they appear
>syntactically similar.
C++ and Java are two languages which I for one would consider
synergistic; learning C++ allows one to appreciate Java's
simplicity, and learning Java allows one to apprechate C++'s
flexibility or complexity, depending on how one looks at it. :-)
And learning both allows one to cross-design things, first by prototyping
in Java, then by coding it up in C++. (At least, that's what I'm
doing in one project.) And Java has a very rich library. :-)
>
>- Donn
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Who is "S"??
Date: Thu, 04 May 2000 15:03:38 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on Thu, 04 May 2000 13:36:56 +0100 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
>> and generally being super-stupid-ignorant and a Microsoft cheerleader,
>> in the worst sort of way (he'd severely embarrass most of the current
>> Winvocates, IMO). I doubt he'd even know how to write a decent
>> Basic program (never mind C, C++, Java, Tcl/Tk, Eiffel, or Smalltalk).
>> Even LOGO might have been too hard for him :-).
>> Of course, LOGO might be too hard for me, since I've never used it. :-)
>> It's supposed to be a language to move a "turtle" around a bitmap
>> screen to draw things;
>
>Not necessarily --- Its inherently a vector language, although it was
>usually done on a bitmap screen. One in junior school, a teacher wheeled
>out a round thing with wheels on. It lookes very modern and extermely
>impressive. Anyway, we plugged it in to the computer and LOGO got it to
>draw shapes. That is the only time I saw LOGO not working on a bitmapped
>display.
Ah, noted. Although that reminds me of a cartoon (Fifth wave?)
with a "mainframe mouse" for some reason.... :-)
>
>> I don't know the details of the syntax,
>> though -- although it can't be horribly difficult for someone who
>> knows C++ intimately, Java quite well, Fortran, COBOL, various assemblers,
>
>
>Things like
>FD 100
>RT 90
>FD 100
>RT 90
>BK 50
>
>To draw:
>
> __|
>|
>|
>A
>
>(A is the starting posn of the turtle) You just give it commands like
>forward, backwards, turn. There is some provision vor variables, but I
>don't know about loops. (I last used it in earnest when I was 11 (on a
>BBC) I still have a BBC with it on, but I don't use it anymore, tho I
>recently installed a Linux version:-)
Hmm...where would there be source code for such a beast? Surely
it's not difficult to implement.
(Side issue: I wonder what language Lego Mindstorm is using for
its 'bot control....)
>
>
>> But enough of my resume. :-) In any event, the other posters of
>> this newsgroup probably all plonked S as soon as it became apparent
>> that he had half the brains of a squished mosquito. (I'm not
>> sure about the other half.)
>
>The said mosquito's arse?
Probably.
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- S. What happens when a Microsoft virus takes over
one's brain. :-)
Linux. What happens when a great idea takes over
one's brain. :-)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: X-configurator won't start....> help?
Date: Thu, 04 May 2000 15:04:37 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, snowball <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on Thu, 04 May 2000 07:59:57 -0700
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>I just installed Redhat6.2, then I try to adjust the resolution
>(Currently...1100x750 something like that). When I click(or/double
>click) Xconfigurator (/user/x11r6/bin), nothing happens!!. I've tried
>this 20 times....... Any input from linux guru?? TIA
You might ask in comp.os.linux.setup; this is an advocacy group.
Good luck. :-)
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- now back to our regularly scheduled ranting and raving
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: alt.lang.basic,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 04 May 2000 09:38:30 -0600
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Arclight) writes:
> >And in 2001, or 2002?
>
> well you can still buy office 95 from some places, so I think it'd be
> pretty safe to say that you will probably be able to buy office 97 in
> 2002,
>
> >That doesn't solve the problem.
>
> But why should you force microsoft to sell outdated products just to
> support the few people who might want them?
It's commonly called the "upgrade treadmill" by us "few people".
We hate it.
> anyway what's stopping you using office 2000 on some of the computers
> and 97 on others?
File incompatibilites.
Don't tell me they don't exist; we've already encountered several
PowerPoint problems (and we don't even have Office 2000 anywhere in
the building).
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: alt.lang.basic,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 04 May 2000 09:41:44 -0600
"Tom Lake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > of BASIC from the '80s). Where is he going to get a new compiler for
> > the software conde he has? Visual Basic is so far from what he worked
> > with that it is silly to contemplate for some. His costs have just
> > gone up drastically just to keep up with the new hardware and software
> > that is now mandatory.
>
> That's what happens when you don't keep up with changes! If he had made
> incremental changes as newer versions of the compilers were introduced, he
> wouldn't be in this fix today. It's Darwinism in its purest form! Those
> that can adapt to change will survive. Those that can't, become extinct.
True, but natural selection also depends on having a very disperse set
of traits. If everyone runs VC++ and Windows then we're on our way
off a cliff some day (witness the ILOVEYOU virus which came out
today).
Of course, everyone *doesn't* run VC++ and Windows, so some of us are
safe (if a bit incovenienced). :)
So, someone running BASIC from the 80s could be a very good thing,
from a natural selection point of view.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stefaan A Eeckels)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x
Subject: Re: X Windows must DIE!!!
Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 16:55:02 +0200
In article <8ert80$r4c$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
bytes256 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> My point is quite simply put: XWindows does not best meet the needs of
> the average Linux user.
Says who?
> It is far more complicated than necessary.
Bullocks.
> And then it leaves out important functionality that people want.
> (Standardized controls,
Easy. Only use KDE, or only use GNOME. Since when
was having a choice a problem?
> High performance,
So who cares it's not the best games platform? There are
alternatives. Any reason why X needs to be the only
display interface?
> easy installation, etc.)
Marvelllous. Junk the system instead of writing an installer.
That's efficiency, that's sound thinking.
>
> Don't shoot the messenger...revolutions have to start somewhere.
They usually start by someone writing code.
HAND
--
Stefaan
--
--PGP key available from PGP key servers (http://www.pgp.net/pgpnet/)--
Ninety-Ninety Rule of Project Schedules:
The first ninety percent of the task takes ninety percent of
the time, and the last ten percent takes the other ninety percent.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Who is "S"??
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 04 May 2000 09:51:44 -0600
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine) writes:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[snip]
> >Also, we may see the day when Perl applets will
> >rival Java applets, since they both are capable of compiling into
> >bytecode, and a lot of sites already use Perl for various things,
> >including cgi scripts.
Python can already do this (python is very perl-like when viewed as a
procedureal language). Check out jpython at python.org.
> Indeed; php, as I understand it, is an embedded Perl interpreter
> in Apache. (Correct me if I'm wrong, please. :-) ) This avoids the
> overhead of a process fork() without losing the functionality
> inherent in Perl.
PHP isn't related to perl at all; it has some similar semantics (like
using $), but mod_perl is the embedded Perl interpreter in Apache.
> >It'll be interesting to see, since Perl has
> >had some object-oriented HTML extensions put in, and there's also a
> >graphics Perl lib AFAIK.
>
> Perl/Tk has been out for awhile now. Nice package, although I
> for one haven't gotten around to learning it myself. (I use
> Tcl/Tk; Tcl is absolutely brain-dead as a language, but Tk makes
> up for it. :-) )
If you know tcl/tk, then you know perl/tk. There is also perl/gtk,
which is wicked fun.
> >Larry Wall looks like he's trapped in the early 70's as far as style
> >is concerned. :-)
That depends on the programmer. If you like OO languages, you can
program Perl as such. If you like procedural languages, you can
do that as well. If you like a scripting language, you can write all
the messy glue code you want. If you like structured languages you
can [strict]ly do so. It really is a great language, but it can
easily trip up messy/novice programmers; python is stricter (and
better) in this regard.
[snip]
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Virus on the net?
Date: Thu, 04 May 2000 15:53:39 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Martijn Bruns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Has anyone heard of a new virus on the net?
>
> It's called 'I Love U'. (or something that sounds like that) and
> it seems to be infecting a LOT of companies around the globe
> right now!
> Also, it seems to infect Windows PC's running Outlook (Express?).
>
'tis true. It's a VBS crap going into registry and shitting around;
then sending itself to whatever addresses it can find in your Outlook
address book in the registry. Pretty lame (prolific, nevertheless).
> It was on the radio surrounded by a mild case of panic :-)
>
> Does someone know more about it? Could something like this affect
> Linux-machines also?
>
No microshit there, right? I think that even using Netscape as a mail-reader
is semi-safe on Windows: it will infect the computer, but if you don't use
Outlook, then it looks like it won't propagate any further.
Cheers.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Virus on the net?
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 04 May 2000 09:58:44 -0600
Martijn Bruns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Has anyone heard of a new virus on the net?
>
> It's called 'I Love U'. (or something that sounds like that) and
> it seems to be infecting a LOT of companies around the globe
> right now!
> Also, it seems to infect Windows PC's running Outlook (Express?).
>
> It was on the radio surrounded by a mild case of panic :-)
>
> Does someone know more about it? Could something like this affect
> Linux-machines also?
1) Most Linux e-mail clients aren't dumb enough to run code sent in
e-mail, and there's no "give me all your friend's e-mail addresss"
API either.
2) Linux doesn't run VBS. :)
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (No Name)
Subject: Re: Virus on the net?
Date: 4 May 2000 15:55:00 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 04 May 2000 16:52:40 +0200, Martijn Bruns said:
>Has anyone heard of a new virus on the net?
>
>It's called 'I Love U'. (or something that sounds like that) and
>it seems to be infecting a LOT of companies around the globe
>right now!
>Also, it seems to infect Windows PC's running Outlook (Express?).
>
>It was on the radio surrounded by a mild case of panic :-)
>
>Does someone know more about it? Could something like this affect
>Linux-machines also?
Yes, I can confirm that I have seen advice about this one today.
The information I have is that thge subject says "I LOVE YOU" and
that it has an attachment called "LETTER-FOR-YOU.TXT.vbs".
I was not told what the effects are, nut this looks like Visual Basic
Script or something like that.
Another thread in this ng was talking about MS innovation, I hope they
patented the stupid idea of dumb scripting all around the place in
applications tightly integrated to the OS for no good reason....
I and no, the virus of course can't affect a Linux machine, even if
you have the bad jugdment of open an attachment from an unknown
source.
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Virus on the net?
Date: Thu, 04 May 2000 17:04:26 +0100
Martijn Bruns wrote:
>
> Has anyone heard of a new virus on the net?
>
> It's called 'I Love U'. (or something that sounds like that) and
> it seems to be infecting a LOT of companies around the globe
> right now!
> Also, it seems to infect Windows PC's running Outlook (Express?).
>
> It was on the radio surrounded by a mild case of panic :-)
>
> Does someone know more about it? Could something like this affect
> Linux-machines also?
Sounds like another macro virus to me :-)
Lets see all those windows boxes crash and burn...
-Ed
--
Did you know that the highest point in the world is only eight foot?
-The Hackenthorpe Book Of Lies
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
