Linux-Advocacy Digest #367, Volume #26 Thu, 4 May 00 21:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linus' comments go agains common knowledge ("Rich C")
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 ("Davorin Mestric")
Re: Virus on the net? ("Rich C")
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (JEDIDIAH)
Linux file system vs. Win/DOS ? (tom)
new IACT site on Linux/Cobalt ( (DG))
Re: Linux file system vs. Win/DOS ? (JEDIDIAH)
How many more viruses does Microsoft need to fix the problem? (mlw)
Re: How many more viruses does Microsoft need to fix the problem? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: The Dream World of Linux Zealots ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Dvorak calls Microsoft on 'innovation' (mlw)
Microsoft: STAY THE FUCK OFF THE NET!!! (butch)
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (Damien)
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (Damien)
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (Arclight)
INDYBOX (Becky & Gus Palandri)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Rich C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linus' comments go agains common knowledge
Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 18:15:20 -0400
Davorin Mestric <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8esrn7$k6e$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> but i thought open sourced programs are easy to debug with thousand eyes
> working on it... now linus says they need help from professional
programmers
> for debugging?
No, he said he expected to _get_ help from businesses in debugging,
not that they really _needed_ it. The article also states that the
programmers who _are_ working on it tend to want to add features rather
than do the mundane debugging work, which may be the main reason
why the release date is slipping.
>
> doesn't make sense...
Yes, it does, if you take the article literally, and not try to read
anything
into it. The fact that business _can_ help with the debugging at all is
the whole point of open source. It's certainly better that a programmer can
say "I think you've got a bug in foo.c here" instead of "Module foo dumps
core whenever I do this."
>
> from: (watch for line splits)
>
>
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-1808165.html?tag=st.ne.1003.thed.1003-2
> 00-1808165
>
> In February, Torvalds exhorted programmers to spend time on the
> comparatively mundane bug-fixing instead of the more exciting work of
adding
> new features. He predicted the arrival of programming help from businesses
> would help with the bug-fixing.
>
>
--
Rich C.
"Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people."
------------------------------
From: "Davorin Mestric" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.lang.basic,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 02:11:01 +0200
Damien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Another thing, the default on all these programs is to save into the
> new incompatible file format. Is there reason for this other than to
> turn the upgrade treadmill? Is there any way to change the system to
> make it save into the older formats by default?
what then is more logical? to save in older format as default? yeah,
right.
------------------------------
From: "Rich C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Virus on the net?
Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 18:31:04 -0400
Brian Langenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8esqr0$1ut$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> : Sorry, but this virus is *NOT* run automatically. It's only run by
> : executing the script attachment. The user must physicall execute the
file.
>
> Early reports stated viewing the message in the preview panel is
> enough to launch the script. This has since been proven false.
But doesn't Outlook display html messages in the preview pane?
If a jscript or vbscript virus were embedded in the html, wouldn't
it autoexecute?
> Yet the problem persists. Why is this? Are people really this
> stupid? I don't think so. The problem is still one of
> auto-executing content.
I think in this case the file had two extensions, and at first glance
_looked_ like a text file, so large numbers of people opened it.
> People click on something in their
> email expecting data and an program executes in its place.
> Not only does it hide and overwrite files, but it has the
> ability to mangle the entire system!
>
> In this case, a little bit a consious thought (like actually
> having to save the file to disk first) could've saved a lot
> of grief. Another safeguard would be some actual system
> security beyond the "any app can do anything" approach
> of consumer-grade Windows.
If the Linux distributors aren't careful, we will have a lot of
naive users running netscape as root and executing all kinds
of stuff that "can do anything" and they won't be any better off
than they were with Windows.
>
> But until people on the street start getting more proactive
> towards security (like demanding a standard installer program
> that can check digital signatures prior to installation - ala RPM,
> for example) these sorts of attacks will continue to occur.
> So far, people still aren't sick enough of Melissa and ILOVEYOU
> to change their attitude. I wonder how much more it'll take.
>
--
Rich C.
"Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people."
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: alt.lang.basic,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: Thu, 04 May 2000 23:47:14 GMT
On Fri, 5 May 2000 02:11:01 +0200, Davorin Mestric <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Damien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Another thing, the default on all these programs is to save into the
>> new incompatible file format. Is there reason for this other than to
>> turn the upgrade treadmill? Is there any way to change the system to
>> make it save into the older formats by default?
>
>
> what then is more logical? to save in older format as default? yeah,
>right.
What's so illogical about it? Unless you have some burning desire
(or need) for an advanced feature: what's the point of potentially
complicating the lives of anyone that might need to share data with
you?
It certainly doesn't make sense from Microsoft's perspective. Their
business model requires that you buy more and more software, even if
you don't need it.
If a document can be expressed in Word 2.0 format or RTF then why not?
--
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: tom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Linux file system vs. Win/DOS ?
Date: Thu, 04 May 2000 23:40:42 GMT
I'm curious about how Linux organizes itself and its files. In
Windows, the system files are usually in Windows & Windows/system, and
program files are in the similarly named directory. And the same goes
for DOS, of course.
What happens in Linux when you install packages? (where do the program
files end up, etc.?) I haven't installed Linux yet, but I'm planning
to try it out in the near future.
I did search for a HOW-TO on this, but couldn't seem to find what I'm
looking for. If anyone could refer me to an online source of info,
that would be nice, too.
Tom
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: <iact*no-spam*@techie.com> (DG)
Subject: new IACT site on Linux/Cobalt
Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 20:07:25
2 sites are better than 1!
============================
Two websites are better than one, folks! IACT has launched a
second, larger site at www.iact.net, now running on a
high-performance Linux/Cobalt server at GT Virtual Internet
[http://www.virtualinet.com]. They have a multi-platform approach
to web hosting, much like IACT's own
philosophy. By using a good mix of OS/2 and Linux, they ensure
the maximum in reliability, accessibility and speed when you
visit our new second site.
Please bookmark IACT's http://www.iact.net address now and
place it next to our original homepage URL of
[http://pages.cthome.net/iact/]. Both sites will have the same
great batch of articles and commentaries plus ongoing projects
that help IACT promote greater freedom of choice in software,
better access to services & technologies, and more open
standards.
- Check out brand new IACT Quarterly Newsletter Issue #8:
http://pages.cthome.net/iact/IQN/8.html
http://www.iact.net/IQN/8.html
- Reach our 24x7 Reports at either of our two sites:
http://pages.cthome.net/iact/features/24x7.html
http://www.iact.net/features/24x7.html
- IACT's Cover Page now can be reached two ways:
http://pages.cthome.net/iact/
http://www.iact.net
========================================================
International Alliance for Compatible Technology
more open standards, user choice and
free access to compatible technology
http://www.iact.net
http://pages.cthome.net/iact/
========================================================
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Linux file system vs. Win/DOS ?
Date: Thu, 04 May 2000 23:54:25 GMT
On Thu, 04 May 2000 23:40:42 GMT, tom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I'm curious about how Linux organizes itself and its files. In
>Windows, the system files are usually in Windows & Windows/system, and
>program files are in the similarly named directory. And the same goes
>for DOS, of course.
>
>What happens in Linux when you install packages? (where do the program
>files end up, etc.?) I haven't installed Linux yet, but I'm planning
>to try it out in the near future.
Search on the web for something labeled "FileSystem Standard".
[deletia]
--
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: How many more viruses does Microsoft need to fix the problem?
Date: Thu, 04 May 2000 20:04:14 -0400
OK, MS has more than ample warning, more than ample time to make sure
that this sort of thing does not keep happening. What the F&^k guys? Is
Microsoft so inept that they can't protect their own e-mail programs? I
just don't understand why people are not going after MS in court. After
all, if someone dies in a minor car accident, the car maker is usually
held responsible. Why shouldn't a software maker be held responsible if
they do not practice reasonable competence in security.
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 9x, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
"We've got a blind date with destiny, and it looks like she ordered the
lobster"
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: How many more viruses does Microsoft need to fix the problem?
Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 00:14:05 GMT
There's no time........
They are too busy adding features :)
Duck :)
On Thu, 04 May 2000 20:04:14 -0400, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>OK, MS has more than ample warning, more than ample time to make sure
>that this sort of thing does not keep happening. What the F&^k guys? Is
>Microsoft so inept that they can't protect their own e-mail programs? I
>just don't understand why people are not going after MS in court. After
>all, if someone dies in a minor car accident, the car maker is usually
>held responsible. Why shouldn't a software maker be held responsible if
>they do not practice reasonable competence in security.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: The Dream World of Linux Zealots
Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 00:09:54 GMT
In article <8ephse$7na$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In article <8ep8ga$s80$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > In article <8emusk$agm$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > > It will be YOUR kids that will have to go in circles trying to
> find
> > > > software that conforms to their college standards. It will be
YOUR
> > > > kids that will have to explain Linux to all of the other kids as
> > well
> > > > as teachers in their school that will most likely be running
> > Windows.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Buzz Wrong again. I do not have ANY kids and unless there are some
> > major
> > > canges, it is quite impossible for me to have any. Once again your
> > close
> > > minded Wintroll(tm) assumtions prove that you are incapable of
> putting
> > > forth ideas that apply to MY needs.
> >
> > I thought you homo types prefered MacOS.
>
> That's *Mr. Homo* to you. I guess it's true, MS software IS the
> software of BIGOTS! We Homos like only the best. Thus, we like Linux
OR
> Mac.
>
> Get real troll, the only preference that is affected by being a gay
man
> is that we prefer MEN and that would count *YOU* out!!!
I'm sorry COCKSUSCKER , but being a MAN means liking wowen and later
becoming a FATHER, not going crazy over some hairy dudes ASS.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dvorak calls Microsoft on 'innovation'
Date: Thu, 04 May 2000 20:19:32 -0400
Nils stuart wrote:
>
> mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> </snip>
>
> > No, I think we should brake them up, inhibit Microsoft's ability to
> > bundle MS-Office with Windows, legally force MS-Office to be de-coupled
> > from the Microsoft Windows undocumented API set, and let truly
> > innovative packages be sold. If Microsoft can actually do something that
> > people would want to buy, then they will go out and buy it. As it is
> > now, it is still practically impossible to buy a name brand P.C. without
> > Windows.
> >
>
> Please give me an example of an Undocumented API call
> Not superseeded , not unsupported like anything in ICMP.DLL (microsoft
> clearly states icmp.dll is nolonger supported)
> I.E. calling the net32api with info structure 1003 doesn't count as the
> lanmanager functions and structures are documented as superceded
> Also exclude poorly doumented or incorrectly documented (like the original
> writeprivateprofilestring from win3.1 )
There are a whole host of undocumented functions in NTDLL which are used
by various MS software but not made public. There are a whole bunch of
APIs in the various system DLLs that are unnamed, simply ordinal
numbers. Using dumpbin, you can see them, you can also see the "import"
decls from MS software.
>
> Sources for documentation ..... all SDK's and DDK's published since 1982 and
> the online knowledge base
> or anything a professional developer is likely tho have (like MSDN level 3
> and tech net)
No, there is little or NO documentation for unnamed API's and NTDLL
structures.
>
> I will give on Andre Shulman's undocumented stuff especially in the
> generation of psp's.... but that documentation did exist if you knew where
> to find it. (in the OS2/ DDK from 1988 and IBM's DDK for the PS/2)
The PSP stuff was very well documented for DOS, since Windows is DOS
based, this was not a problem.
>
> Take a deep breath and contrast that to the horrific man pages for linux or
> anything apple produces for developers
> Not the same level as OS400 doc's or Sun's SDK but available at a fraction
> of the price (2190 /year with a liscense for most of the important buisness
> SW from microsoft)
At least with Linux, you have the source. You can see how it is done,
and how to accomplish what you want to do the best way.
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 9x, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
"We've got a blind date with destiny, and it looks like she ordered the
lobster"
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (butch)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.fan.bill-gates,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Microsoft: STAY THE FUCK OFF THE NET!!!
Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 00:21:55 GMT
http://cnn.com/2000/TECH/computing/05/04/iloveyou.02/index.html
Microsoft is a FUCKING NETWORK VIRUS! Microsoft has no business
being involved with the Internet!
Bill FUCKIN' Gates, go back to making interavtive CD-ROMS. The
Internet does not need your virusware!
Shit man, how many more relatives computers do I have to keep
fixing because of the Microsoft virus of the fucking week!???
This shit is getting old!
Microsoft: STAY THE FUCK OFF THE NET!!!
-*- butch -*-
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Damien)
Crossposted-To: alt.lang.basic,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 05 May 2000 00:28:11 GMT
On Thu, 04 May 2000 21:10:41 GMT, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
Arclight <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| On 04 May 2000 17:27:11 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Damien) wrote:
|
| >On Thu, 04 May 2000 16:32:03 GMT, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
| >Arclight <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| >Any decent file format would have
| >an extensible design making new versions automatically compatible with
| >older versions.
|
| They are partially compatible, as long as you don't use any of the new
| features.
But a well designed file format would degrade well. Uses of programs
that don't support the newer version of the file format would still be
able to work with those files transparently, albeit without being able
to edit and view all the newest, whiz-bang features.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Damien)
Crossposted-To: alt.lang.basic,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 05 May 2000 00:31:19 GMT
On Thu, 04 May 2000 23:05:16 GMT, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
Rico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| I'm missing your problem here, if you want to stick to a particular
| version of a product, buy an open license. Then if MS stops selling, so
| what, buy a new computer in what ever year you pick, install from the same
| old CD you installed every other copy in the office from. Better still
| stick the CD in the CD server and log the 'new' PC into the lan and run
| the install script. Let 3Com and cat5 wiring do the work.
|
| For an individual, as you upgrade computers, just install your original
| license on the new machine.
But if the new computer isn't a replacment? Now you have two
computers and one Office 5 license. What do you do?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Arclight)
Crossposted-To: alt.lang.basic,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 00:40:11 GMT
On 05 May 2000 00:28:11 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Damien) wrote:
>On Thu, 04 May 2000 21:10:41 GMT, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
>Arclight <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>| On 04 May 2000 17:27:11 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Damien) wrote:
>|
>| >On Thu, 04 May 2000 16:32:03 GMT, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
>| >Arclight <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>| >Any decent file format would have
>| >an extensible design making new versions automatically compatible with
>| >older versions.
>|
>| They are partially compatible, as long as you don't use any of the new
>| features.
>
>But a well designed file format would degrade well. Uses of programs
>that don't support the newer version of the file format would still be
>able to work with those files transparently, albeit without being able
>to edit and view all the newest, whiz-bang features.
In theory yes, but can you point to anything which actually does this?
TTFN
Arclight
Web Site:
http://www.daniel-davies.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
------------------------------
From: Becky & Gus Palandri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: INDYBOX
Date: Thu, 04 May 2000 20:00:12 -0500
Has anyone here had any experiences with Indybox computers, located at
http://www.indybox.com. This is important. Please respond directly to my
email address
Thanks for any information that you may have
Gus Palandri
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
