Linux-Advocacy Digest #371, Volume #26 Fri, 5 May 00 05:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Web page rendering Linux (KDE) vs. windows 2000 ("Jim Ross")
Re: Microsoft: STAY THE FUCK OFF THE NET!!! ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: What else is hidden in MS code??? (Jim Richardson)
Re: which OS is best? (Jim Richardson)
Re: Virus on the net? (Jim Richardson)
Re: Virus on the net? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Microsoft: STAY THE FUCK OFF THE NET!!! (Loren Petrich)
Re: Microsoft: STAY THE FUCK OFF THE NET!!! (Loren Petrich)
Re: Virus on the net? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 ("Tom Hanlin")
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (Jim Richardson)
Re: Linux Installation from Hell (Streamer)
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (Geo)
Re: Is the PC era over? (Wesley Felter)
Re: Virus on the net? (Rob S. Wolfram)
Re: at the risk of ignorance...a little too late for that (Curly++)
Re: Virus on the net? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Jim Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Web page rendering Linux (KDE) vs. windows 2000
Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 01:06:02 -0400
JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Tue, 2 May 2000 02:56:10 -0400, Jim Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >
> >JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> On Mon, 1 May 2000 01:00:13 -0400, Jim Ross
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >wrote:
> >> >> As of yet, this is painfully true indeed.
> >> >> Thread support in Linux has been just fine for 6 months or so,
> >> >> though. The biggest problems lie in speed and user-friendliness.
> >> >> These two problems have, however, recently been addressed with
> >> >> the advent of XFree86 4.0, which is still not to be considered
> >> >> stable enough for distributing.
> >> >> I heard, though not experienced, that the adding of
> >> >> (Truetype-)fonts is much easier than before.
> >> >> Also, the X-system (finally) gets a hook into the kernel (DRI),
> >> >> which improves speed -dramatically-. This would finally make
> >> >> high-bandwidth DV a possibility, as well as high-performance
> >> >> gaming.
> >> >
> >> >Now if anti-aliasing support gets done I'll be very happy.
> >> >Even with TrueType fonts, without anti-aliasing, fonts look jagged.
> >> >
> >> >I know I'm being picky on this, but it would make Linux+X look much
more
> >> >professional,
> >> >especially when viewing a presentation were the first slide usually
> >contains
> >> >a large font and a picture.
> >> >Everyone notices I'm sure, if not understanding why it looks bad.
> >>
> >> a) You can get similar results with Type 1 fonts.
> >
> >Not out of the box and not without tinkering.
>
> Bullshit.
Well, your Bullshit is bullshit. The eyes don't lie.
>
> The default fonts are more than adequate for this.
> Plus, you're going to be 'tinkering' either way.
>
> TrueType is no silver bullet.
Yep. Anti-aliasing is critical.
I did a compare of AbiWord in X and then in Windows.
It makes a big difference.
The default font in Staroffice 5.1 looked very bad.
I examined some fonts in SO to Word 97 in NT.
In addition to nice anti-aliased shades, the number 7 has 21 vertical lines
in Word to make the curve on the bottom.
In StarOffice, the number 7 has 7 vertical lines. I don't have to say how
blocky it looked.
In Word a period looked quite round.
In SO, it is a square. A square for a period? That says it all.
>
> >Quality fonts out of the box is a must for a quality desktop system.
>
> What fonts?
All variable width fonts.
Times looks poor in X.
Even the fonts in the GUI Redhat 6.[1][2] installer on the left look bad.
>
> This is quite relevant in making comparisons.
>
> Any other GUI comes with about 2 installed fonts as well.
>
> (something you learn when stealing fonts from Win9x while
> playing with TT font servers)
I've done it but I should have to in Linux was decent for a desktop system.
The idea even sounds strange to have to borrow things from one OS to make up
for a serious lack of it in another.
I don't know if Windows app vendors should bother.
May Linux isn't ready to support nice apps like Quicken yet.
Jim
>
> [deletia]
>
>
> --
>
> |||
> / | \
>
> Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.fan.bill-gates,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft: STAY THE FUCK OFF THE NET!!!
Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 02:57:54 -0500
Loren Petrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8ett8e$qt9$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <9bqQ4.4508$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Trust me, if Linux had 90% of the market share, it too would have viruses
> >like this one. This particular virus does not require any special
> >priveleges and takes advantage of no security holes. It's a simple
trojan
> >worm that could be written for any OS, including Linux/Unix. ...
>
> ROTFL!!!
>
> This virus takes advantage of e-mailers that automatically execute
> appropriate attachments; I've never heard of any e-mailer for any OS other
> than Windows that does this.
The attachment is not automatically executed. The user must physicall
launch the attachment, and when outlook asks if you want to save it or
execute it, you must tell it to execute (it defaults to save).
> Has there ever been a Unix/Linux one that automatically executes
> attached Unix shell scripts?
Irrlevant, given that this virus does not automatically execute.
> And I know of no MacOS one that automatically executes attached
> AppleScripts.
Irrelevant.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What else is hidden in MS code???
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 05:12:18 GMT
On Thu, 4 May 2000 20:44:28 -0500,
Erik Funkenbusch, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>Rob S. Wolfram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >Hard disk serial numbers are not guaranteed to be unique. Two hard disks
>> >can exist with the same ID. It's unlikely, but it can happen. And since
>> >components that use them can be shipped all over the world, the odds of a
>> >clash are even higher. Random numbers are not guaranteed to be unique
>> >either. It's possible for two systems to generate the exact same random
>> >number. Again, not likely, but possible. MAC addresses are guaranteed
>by
>> >the IEEE to be unique.
>>
>> I'll bet you a year's salary that I can come up with two distinct
>> ethernet cards with the same MAC address. Wanna play?
>
>If this is the case, then one of the ethernet card vendors is not playing by
>the rules.
>
Some cards can have the MAC address changed onboard (without swapping out the
prom or anything like that.)
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.flame.macintosh
Subject: Re: which OS is best?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 05:17:37 GMT
On Thu, 04 May 2000 16:18:36 -0500,
[EMAIL PROTECTED], in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>On Thu, 04 May 2000 03:21:16 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 03 May 2000 22:03:24 -0500,
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED], in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> brought forth the following words...:
>>
>>>
>>>More details, please.
>>
>>Until somewhere in the 2.3.x kernels, pcmcia is not in the kernel, it is
>>available only as a seperate module. After compilation and installation of the
>>pcmcia-cs pacakge, the modules for it will reside in
>>/lib/modules/$KERNEL_VERSION/pcmcia
>
>This is what I don't understand. I'm taking the kernel source that
>was already there, and re-building the kernel. I shouldn't need to do
>anything to get PCMCIA support working, right?
you said in the first post that you had moved the old modules to some
other directory. That would include the pcmcia modules. The pcmica modules
would _not_ be recompiled with a new kernel IIRC, since they are (up till
somewhere in the 2.3 tree) a seperate package.
>
>>check there for them, if they are there, then try verifying that
>>pcmcia-core is loaded (lsmod will list the loaded modules)
>
>If it isn't there, then what?
well, verify that pcmcia_core.o exists in /lib/modules/$KERNEL_VER/pcmcia
and if so, insmod pcmcia-core should load it. (But it probably isn't there,
because if it was, it would have autoloaded when needed. )
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Subject: Re: Virus on the net?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 06:24:13 GMT
On Fri, 5 May 2000 00:40:19 -0500,
Erik Funkenbusch, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>Jim Richardson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> 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.
>> >
>> >No, but there's a mail aliases list in the users home directory that
>could
>> >easily be read.
>>
>> sure, except how? you'd have to get the user to fire up an executable.
>
>It's a little more involved on Unix, but certainly possible. There are lots
>and lots of people using Unix that don't have a clue about how to read a
>shell script. If a friend of theirs sends them an email with instructions
>about how to execute the attachment, most of those people will do it.
>That's how the virus propogates, by sending itself under the guise of a
>friend.
And the extra steps make the propagation of the virus much much slower than
with windows.
>
>> >> 2) Linux doesn't run VBS. :)
>> >
>> >No, instead it has sh.
>>
>> and permissions, so that even in the event of an executable being run
>without
>> asking from an email (are there any linux email clients that do this?)
>> the only files that will be affected are those the user has write perms
>to.
>
>No different than Windows 2000.
curious, when you install W2K does it have you create a user ? or
does it default to Admin?
(what % of the windows folks are using W2k?)
Obviously windows has a problem, it may be that W2K specifically has less
of a problem, but there's a lot more windows than W2K out there.
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Virus on the net?
Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 00:40:19 -0500
Jim Richardson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> 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.
> >
> >No, but there's a mail aliases list in the users home directory that
could
> >easily be read.
>
> sure, except how? you'd have to get the user to fire up an executable.
It's a little more involved on Unix, but certainly possible. There are lots
and lots of people using Unix that don't have a clue about how to read a
shell script. If a friend of theirs sends them an email with instructions
about how to execute the attachment, most of those people will do it.
That's how the virus propogates, by sending itself under the guise of a
friend.
> >> 2) Linux doesn't run VBS. :)
> >
> >No, instead it has sh.
>
> and permissions, so that even in the event of an executable being run
without
> asking from an email (are there any linux email clients that do this?)
> the only files that will be affected are those the user has write perms
to.
No different than Windows 2000.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.fan.bill-gates,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft: STAY THE FUCK OFF THE NET!!!
Date: 5 May 2000 07:29:52 GMT
In article <UkqQ4.77847$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Otto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Why don't you teach them how to prevent viruses on their machine? Had you
>done it at the first time....
Why should that be necessary in the first place?????
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] And a fast train
My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.fan.bill-gates,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft: STAY THE FUCK OFF THE NET!!!
Date: 5 May 2000 07:29:18 GMT
In article <9bqQ4.4508$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Trust me, if Linux had 90% of the market share, it too would have viruses
>like this one. This particular virus does not require any special
>priveleges and takes advantage of no security holes. It's a simple trojan
>worm that could be written for any OS, including Linux/Unix. ...
ROTFL!!!
This virus takes advantage of e-mailers that automatically execute
appropriate attachments; I've never heard of any e-mailer for any OS other
than Windows that does this.
Has there ever been a Unix/Linux one that automatically executes
attached Unix shell scripts?
And I know of no MacOS one that automatically executes attached
AppleScripts.
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] And a fast train
My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Virus on the net?
Date: 5 May 2000 06:07:47 GMT
On Sun, 4 May 3900 23:08:37, Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hmm.. i was hit by it but didnt execute the script. I had a look at the
> script and even not being to strong on Visual Basic it is easy to
> understand that this was a "bad program"
>
What exactly did you find? How did you inspect it? What was the clue
to it being malevolent? Please give actual examples (snippets) so we
can
be better prepared.
Thanx.
------------------------------
From: "Tom Hanlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.lang.basic
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 06:33:34 GMT
On 4-May-2000, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >are you suggesting that microsoft should continue to support all its
> >old software because people might still be using it?
>
> I think he's suggesting, as am I, that Microsoft should continue to
> support its *customers*, even after its taken their money, as an
> on-going license does in fact indicate *some* level of long-term
> commitment.
I have to suspect that you've never actually read any of Microsoft's
licenses-- not to single out Microsoft, as these are industry-standard
bull**** boilerplate. In a dozen pages or so, they all come down to the
following:
1) Despite what you may imagine, you didn't actually buy our product. You're
just licensing it at our limited sufferance. Don't piss us off, loser.
2) Our product is not software. It's a trademark-named collection of bits on
a disk which, despite our advertising claims, is not actually expected to do
anything useful, or even to refrain from destroying your computer and all
data contained in it.
3) If there is something physically wrong with the disk we supply you, we
will consider replacing it with another disk that may or may not contain
something or other.
4) Despite the fact that we deny that our software has any ostensible useful
purpose, you may not copy it, disassemble it, or think of producing anything
that sort of does what we claim our product might do. (Fixing it is Right
Out.)
5) Ha ha. [Ok, I made up this part. Legalese is uniformly humorless.]
Go ahead, *read* that shrink-wrap license sometime. Aside from (5), you'll
find it all there. (I get a particular kick out of Borland's 15-page
licenses, which are still [from a much earlier and saner point in their
history] called "no-nonsense" "agreements". :-)
In short, no commitment express or implied.
--
Thomas G. Hanlin III, Programmer At Large
home: http://www.tgh3.com - programming tools & libraries, games and things
work: http://www.powerbasic.com - DOS & Windows BASIC compilers & tools
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.lang.basic
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 07:31:31 GMT
On Thu, 04 May 2000 23:57:36 -0700,
Geo, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>Tom-
>
>Beautiful, beautiful take on the whole scene of "licensing". And M$
>has pushed it to the extreme making users and OEM lap up with gratefulness
>their many fixes posted by their web pages.
>
>Such a business! Never before has there been such a business aside from
>the Mafia. M$ now keeping 40% (after all expenses and taxes) of all
>sales for their mounting treasury. And like the Mafia investing, buying
>or wiping out all potential competitors.
>
>Stac Electronics is the only company that ever brought M$ to bey with
>measley $millions for copying their works. Others just cave.
>Is it any wonder why? 40% pure profit can wipe out anyone in the way.
>Obscene.
>
Caldera got $150+ Million in a settlement with M$
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: Streamer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Installation from Hell
Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 00:24:21 -0500
I've got to ask. Are you really trying to create a new Linux distribution, or
are you just trying to repair the Mandrake distribution on your machine with
parts from another installation in hopes of getting a working system? I'm just
wondering what your motives are.
At any case, watch out for those nonstandard library and binary links to
programs not placed in standard directories (or at least where most of the other
distros expect) present in the Redhat and Mandrake distributions. Those links
are real pains, especially if you put in packages you compiled yourself
(Compiled versions of samba, where the binaries are normally installed, and
where Redhat wants these binaries to be are a prime example of this).
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> It's been a very long story, so I'll try to keep it short. My question may
> be a little hard to understand. Specifically, I've built another barely
> functional Linux box from Peanut Linux 7.6 to replace the destroyed Linux
> Mandrake 6.0 installation, and from some RPM packages from the hell-damned
> Linux-Mandrake 7.0-2 CD-ROM. I've used the FHS and some other information to
> build the custom (under construction) basic filesystem (the directory
> structure, not the ext2 filesystem on that shared partition) manually, in a
> directory on the same partition as the working Peanut Linux 7.6 installation.
>
> I wish to know how to begin to build a custom working Linux in this
> directory. To this end, the very first thing I need to know to continue is
> whether the Peanut Linux 7.6 kernel (it's from the 2.2.14 stable release
> source code, apparently) can just be placed into the appropriate directory in
> the custom Linux branch, and used to boot with no other access to what is on
> the rest of the partition. Is "init" the only totally necessary program? Can
> I start with that and build up from there to installing the gcc compilers
> (again) in this custom installation, and from there to recompiling the kernel
> and all the rest of the packages that might go into a custom Linux?
>
> I warned you that the question would be hard to understand. :)
>
> P.S. Yes, this is *exactly* what I want to do. It's been very hard to get
> information about this -- the "chicken and egg" problem seems to utterly
> escape most people, even so-called "Linux gurus". They seem to be unable to
> understand that some people just have extraordinarily bad luck with most
> automated installation scripts, and that sometimes it just necessary to do
> stuff the hardest of hard ways to end nightmarish, endless Catch-22's.
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Geo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.lang.basic
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: Thu, 04 May 2000 23:57:36 -0700
Tom-
Beautiful, beautiful take on the whole scene of "licensing". And M$
has pushed it to the extreme making users and OEM lap up with gratefulness
their many fixes posted by their web pages.
Such a business! Never before has there been such a business aside from
the Mafia. M$ now keeping 40% (after all expenses and taxes) of all
sales for their mounting treasury. And like the Mafia investing, buying
or wiping out all potential competitors.
Stac Electronics is the only company that ever brought M$ to bey with
measley $millions for copying their works. Others just cave.
Is it any wonder why? 40% pure profit can wipe out anyone in the way.
Obscene.
Rant off.
Geo
Tom Hanlin wrote:
>
> On 4-May-2000, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > >are you suggesting that microsoft should continue to support all its
> > >old software because people might still be using it?
> >
> > I think he's suggesting, as am I, that Microsoft should continue to
> > support its *customers*, even after its taken their money, as an
> > on-going license does in fact indicate *some* level of long-term
> > commitment.
>
> I have to suspect that you've never actually read any of Microsoft's
> licenses-- not to single out Microsoft, as these are industry-standard
> bull**** boilerplate. In a dozen pages or so, they all come down to the
> following:
>
> 1) Despite what you may imagine, you didn't actually buy our product. You're
> just licensing it at our limited sufferance. Don't piss us off, loser.
>
> 2) Our product is not software. It's a trademark-named collection of bits on
> a disk which, despite our advertising claims, is not actually expected to do
> anything useful, or even to refrain from destroying your computer and all
> data contained in it.
>
> 3) If there is something physically wrong with the disk we supply you, we
> will consider replacing it with another disk that may or may not contain
> something or other.
>
> 4) Despite the fact that we deny that our software has any ostensible useful
> purpose, you may not copy it, disassemble it, or think of producing anything
> that sort of does what we claim our product might do. (Fixing it is Right
> Out.)
>
> 5) Ha ha. [Ok, I made up this part. Legalese is uniformly humorless.]
>
> Go ahead, *read* that shrink-wrap license sometime. Aside from (5), you'll
> find it all there. (I get a particular kick out of Borland's 15-page
> licenses, which are still [from a much earlier and saner point in their
> history] called "no-nonsense" "agreements". :-)
>
> In short, no commitment express or implied.
>
> --
> Thomas G. Hanlin III, Programmer At Large
> home: http://www.tgh3.com - programming tools & libraries, games and things
> work: http://www.powerbasic.com - DOS & Windows BASIC compilers & tools
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Is the PC era over?
From: Wesley Felter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 07:13:41 GMT
in article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Christopher Browne at
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 5/3/00 10:47 PM:
> You're not incorrect. The SunRay is _not_ speaking X.
Indeed; the protocol is called SLIM.
> I remember seeing a research paper describing SunRay performance, and
> specifically comparing it to X. The paper was on the web; I cannot
> relocate it.
I think it was presented at SOSP '99.
>> That's not entirely true is it? I understood it did region grabs, and
>> could select appropriate compression for those regions. Not to say it's
>> not still relatively inefficient.
>
> I _think_ that the SunRay uses a protocol rather like a "compressed VNC."
The main difference between SLIM and VNC (from my memory of the paper) is
that SLIM is a push protocol (i.e. when a region becomes dirty, the server
sends it to the Sun Ray) and VNC is a pull protocol (i.e. when it finishes
with the previous screen update, the VNC client asks the server for another
one). A disadvantage of SLIM is that a slow client could be overwhelmed, but
since Sun is selling all implementations of the protocol, they can
presumably keep that from happening.
If a region contains pixels of only two colors, SLIM compresses it into a
1bpp bitmap; I don't recall that it attempts to compress general color
bitmaps at all. It also supports YUV for video (but applications would
probably have to use the Xv extension for that to work). I was surprised to
read that SLIM is faster than VNC (and even faster than X in some cases).
I wonder what the performance would be like with antialiased fonts, since
that would defeat the compression.
Wesley Felter - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob S. Wolfram)
Subject: Re: Virus on the net?
Date: 5 May 2000 06:17:30 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Bastian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> What alias list do you mean?
>
>depends on what mail program they're using. But common mail programs such
>as Elm or Pine have well known and common names for their mail aliases.
I beg to disagree. You will have to know how to read the rc files of all
mail clients (pine, mutt, elm, ...), both systemwide and userspecific.
Especially the systemwide rc file is very dependent on the compiletime
parameters, so it's far from standard. Then you have to extract the info
on the name of the aliases file and also know how to extract the
address. I think it would be a lot easier to grep all files in a user's
homedir for an email-like regexp.
In any case, it is far more difficult than the way ILOVEYOU does this:
| set mapi=out.GetNameSpace("MAPI")
| for ctrlists=1 to mapi.AddressLists.Count
| set a=mapi.AddressLists(ctrlists)
Cheers,
Rob
--
Rob S. Wolfram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PGP 0x07606049 GPG 0xD61A655D
"I imagine that playing with one's genital piercings
while waiting for a client's disk to fsck or something
would probably not be appropriate." -- 'Skud' in a.s.r.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Curly++)
Crossposted-To: rec.games.roguelike.nethack
Subject: Re: at the risk of ignorance...a little too late for that
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 02:56:43 -0400
On Thu, 04 May 2000 01:32:18 -0400, Karl Knechtel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> David Steinberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spewed this unto the Network:
>> >There is a simple security reason for it.
>Yes, but I was talking about this in the context of a single-user system.
You mean it's in a locked room without a modem or network
connection? The point of having this stuff on a single-user
computer is so that it stays a single-user computer until the
single user decides otherwise.
>But if you're already "the super-user", what's the point?
Perhaps this came in a "cracked game file" that you downloaded?
Then the cracker becomes super-user on your computer. Ever
wonder how spam kings find so many places to send spam from?
--
Oisin "Curly++" Curtin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Surface Liaison, Minetown Digger Send no SPAM.
http://pages.infinit.net/curlypp/
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Virus on the net?
Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 02:15:15 -0500
Rob S. Wolfram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Bastian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> What alias list do you mean?
> >
> >depends on what mail program they're using. But common mail programs
such
> >as Elm or Pine have well known and common names for their mail aliases.
>
> I beg to disagree. You will have to know how to read the rc files of all
> mail clients (pine, mutt, elm, ...), both systemwide and userspecific.
> Especially the systemwide rc file is very dependent on the compiletime
> parameters, so it's far from standard. Then you have to extract the info
> on the name of the aliases file and also know how to extract the
> address. I think it would be a lot easier to grep all files in a user's
> homedir for an email-like regexp.
Really, and here i've been lead to believe by all those Unix enthusiests
that piped command lines are easier than GUI's.
How difficult is it to use perl or grep and awk? Not very. And just about
as easy as the code below.
I love this. Unix users crow on and on about how powerful and easy
scripting and command lines are until a possible exploit is found and then
suddenly it's too difficult and impossible to do something.
> In any case, it is far more difficult than the way ILOVEYOU does this:
>
> | set mapi=out.GetNameSpace("MAPI")
> | for ctrlists=1 to mapi.AddressLists.Count
> | set a=mapi.AddressLists(ctrlists)
>
> Cheers,
> Rob
> --
> Rob S. Wolfram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PGP 0x07606049 GPG 0xD61A655D
> "I imagine that playing with one's genital piercings
> while waiting for a client's disk to fsck or something
> would probably not be appropriate." -- 'Skud' in a.s.r.
>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
