Linux-Advocacy Digest #385, Volume #26 Fri, 5 May 00 21:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why monopolies are a danger? (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! (JEDIDIAH)
Microsoft at large! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: which OS is best? (Karl Knechtel)
Re: which OS is best? (Karl Knechtel)
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! (JEDIDIAH)
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (Bob Lyday)
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! (JEDIDIAH)
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Why monopolies are a danger? (mlw)
Re: X Windows must DIE!!! (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! (mlw)
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! (mlw)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Why monopolies are a danger?
Date: Sat, 06 May 2000 00:29:54 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on Fri, 05 May 2000 18:45:38 GMT <mFEQ4.6668$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>"Juan Pablo Hierro Álvarez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schreef in
>bericht news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> ILOVEYOU
>
>Oooh! Cut it out!
Yeah! You'll get us all excited. :-)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- why am I seeing big purple dinosaurs at this point?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: Sat, 06 May 2000 00:32:39 GMT
On Sat, 6 May 2000 10:27:26 +1000, Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"abraxas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8evl5a$iu5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > From *deletion* ? ACLs in NT will do exactly that - allow writes but
>not
>> > deletion.
>>
>> > The whole point here is that Unix is no more inherently resistant than
>NT,
>>
>> Yet there are almost no viruses that work on UNIX, and buttloads that work
>> on NT. Why is that again?
>
>For the same reason there's bugger all viruses for the Mac, or for BeOS -
>no-one writes viruses for OSes less than 5% of people are ever going to use.
5% platforms have had plenty of virii written for them actually.
>
>A virus on a properly setup NT box is about a dangerous as a virus on a
>properly setup Unix box.
>
>
--
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Microsoft at large!
Date: Sat, 06 May 2000 00:35:12 GMT
Using Microsoft at work is about as intelligent=20
as using your butt for a gun holster!
There! I think that summs it up.
Charlie
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.flame.macintosh
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Karl Knechtel)
Subject: Re: which OS is best?
Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2000 17:09:26 GMT
Leslie Mikesell ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: >>Yes, for a real test, try to describe a procedure over the phone
: >>to someone who has not used a computer before, having them write
: >>down the directions that they must follow when they get to the
: >>machine and you can't talk to them anymore. I've been fairly
: >>successful at this with remote equipment that required typed
: >>commands. I don't even want to think about it for something
: >>that uses icons and pointers.
: >
: >Different strokes for different folks, I guess. Finding someone who
: >doesn't know at least a little bit about a GUI nowadays is pretty odd,
: >but finding people who abhore the CLI is commonplace. I would
: >anticipate just the reverse of what you've said...
: It probably depends on how you were brainwashed in school. Apple
: and Microsoft invested a lot in making you think the way you
: do. If it were really intuitive, there would, of course, be
: no need to make such an effort to expose children at an early
: age - they would just understand it anyway...
: Les Mikesell
: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Experiments with my 3-year-old (almost 4) niece show that she can (usually,
until she gets frustrated with something) understand that moving the mouse
on the mouse pad causes a similar movement of the pointer on the screen,
without instruction, and account for the tracking speed (which at the
resolution I set the screen to for her is about 4:1). With this in mind
she can operate a simple painting program. Her motor skills as evidenced
by the result on the screen appear nearly as good as those evidenced by her
drawings with pen on paper.
Granted, moving a mouse accurately, clicking on things and dragging (and I
gave her practically no instruction in this by the way; I set out at the
beginning to let her learn it herself as much as possible) does not
directly imply ability to use a GUI, and I consequently take the
responsibility to start the program for her. But these are the basic skills
required to use a GUI efficiently, and the corresponding skill for a CLI
(touch typing) is something which I have yet to see exhibited by a child
of that age.
Karl Knechtel {:>
da728 at torfree dot net <-- currently not working -
torfree.net seems to be having problems.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.flame.macintosh
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Karl Knechtel)
Subject: Re: which OS is best?
Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2000 17:29:46 GMT
Jim Richardson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
<snip cause of rant of the day>
: <rant of the day>
: So can someone explain why it is I have to open a pdf file in windows in
: order to print it? I mean, under linux, dragging the file to the printer
: icon, or typing lpr file.pdf prints it just fine. Why does windows feel
: it is neccessary to open it up with adobe acrobat first? It takes a long
: time compared to simply dragging it to the printer icon in KDE. I mean,
Perhaps the Windows printer driver doesn't process pdf directly?
: if I drag it to the printer icon in windows, windows asks me for a file
: association, I don't want to open it, just print it.
: Another thing, why is it that windows can't seem to deal with
: postscript files, under linux, there's ghost script and the like, all
: set up and easy as click to use, from the command line or gui. Sure, I
: can go to the effort of grabbing GS and GV for windows, but why doesn't
: it come with something similar?
Linux is built under the philosophy of having everyone share their code,
open-source and all that. It therefore comes with everything that will fit
on the CD.
Windows and MacOS are built under the philosophy that anyone who programs
software for those platforms is liable to want money for their software.
They therefore come only with the OS maker's own software plus that of
companies that have made special arrangements.
: Ymmv, but for me, linux is easier to use, and with the exception of
: games, has better and more apps.
I'll give you better, over Windows anyway. (probably over Mac too, in many
cases it's Apples and oranges, tho I have noticed that many of the Mac apps
I like most emulate unix-like functionality eg the command line in MPW or
grepping in BBEdit.) Definitely not "more", over Windows - not yet. As much
software as you may get with the initial install, and as much freedom as the
open-source philosophy gives you, you've got to realize there are really not
that many people out there who are willing and able to do their own coding,
without financial compensation, and thus contribute to the Linux software
community - I'm certain the businesses are still cranking out far more total
apps.
: Normally I don't use windows except for the occaisional game, but the
Do they have good native Solitaire apps for Linux yet, or do you have to
use WINE? ;)
: reports. At least Vim is available for windows, I had to install a
: decent editor, word/wordpad et al were not acceptable. I haven't been
Word is supposed to be a word processor, not an "editor". Wordpad is
supposed to be (as I understand it) a stripped-down version of Word, but in
reality it just - stinks, as you put it. I saw it crash once when the user
banged the keyboard in frustration because some clumsy typos had
un-undoably replaced his text with the number "12" in 132-point font. ;)
: using NT, just Win9X and frankly, they stink. I can't install gvim in an
: equivilent of $HOME. It has to be in the system dirs. Weird, haven't the
: people who wrote windows heard of multi-user? I mean, I use win9X for
No, that was the POINT. WinNT is a server OS. It is designed to be used by
many people. Win9X is a home computer OS. It is designed to be used by one
person (at a time anyway). It does not believe that there is anything to be
gained by permitting the user to exhibit some sort of multiple personality
syndrome.
Note that I wouldn't be defending Windows like this except for the fact that
MacOS is the same in this regard.
: games at home sometimes, I could care less where stuff gets installed
: there, since it's basically a playstation replacement for me. But in a
: work environment, with shared access machines, win9X's "multi-user"
: features are basically worthless.
Which features are these?
: To top it all off, the W95 machine I was using briefly today froze, I had
: tried running telnet from the "Run" menu item, (have done so before with
: no prob) and the system froze, a few minutes later, it was rebooting, except
: it had somehow trashed the C: drive, which it no longer recognized as a
: bootable disk.
You were trying to run <ahem> Windows Telnet? I truly pity you. Can't believe
none of your co-workers (who presumably know something about windows) tried
to warn you. ;)
: Linux, it's not just for servers anymore.
Was it originally?
Karl Knechtel {:>
da728 at torfree dot net <-- currently not working, torfree.net is
having some problems...
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: Sat, 06 May 2000 00:39:03 GMT
On Fri, 05 May 2000 23:43:26 GMT, Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Fri, 5 May 2000 13:21:40 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (M. Buchenrieder)
>wrote:
>
>:"Nik Simpson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[deletia]
>: useless overhead of these binaries, and will therefor just do
>: what the user tells them to do - and nothing more.
>
>How does OE think it knows better than the actual user? Because it
>puts attachments only 2 clicks away? (after a warning message not to
A Unix mail client can put attachements 0 clicks away.
Automatic decoding of attachments is far from the issue here.
>open unknown files) That's pretty weak. I hope everyone understands
>the USER has to still click the file twice AND read a warning message
>AND hit ok.
...a pretty generic warning message too.
"Any attachment could be dangerous"
Well duh? Does that mean you will stop accepting attachments
at all.
The utility of embedding files in email NULLIFIED: brought to you
courtesty of Microsoft Corp.
[deletia]
>:c) UN*X attachments are rather rare :)
>
>There were no e-mail virii for Windows till a year or two either. Just
>wait. If the market share ever makes Linux a worthy candidate for
>virus attacks and it'll happen.
That's a bogus claim that is continually refuted in places
where twits like you are exposed to the relevant information.
>
>:So, while it is certainly possible to shoot yourself in the foot
>:using either UN*X or MS products, MS makes this the default solution...
>:
>:Michael
>
>How so? Read the exact instructions on what you have to do in order to
>infect yourself with ILOVEYOU.
>
>1) click the paper clip
>2) click the attachment
>3) click ok after getting this message:
>
>
>"WARNING: web pages, executables, and other attachments may contain
>viruses or scripts that can be harmful to your computer. It is
>important to be certain this file is from a trustworthy source"
>
>Exactly how is that the default solution?
Microsoft: for making "opening an attachment" mean "executing untrusted code".
--
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 17:39:20 -0700
From: Bob Lyday <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.lang.basic
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Geo wrote:
>
> Jim Richardson wrote:
> >
> > Caldera got $150+ Million in a settlement with M$
>
> Really?? I'd not seen the number because it was out of court settlement,
> sealed, wasn't it? In any event, a trivial amount to M$.
>
> I wonder how many others there were/are. Gates keeps crying "we innovate,
> we innovate" and claims all progress comes from MS. <belch>
>
> There have been uncountable others. M$ has stolen from 1/2 the planet and been sued
>by most of them.
--
Bob
"Earth hath no sorrows that Earth cannot heal." John Muir
Remove ".diespammersdie" to reply.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: Sat, 06 May 2000 00:40:29 GMT
On Fri, 05 May 2000 23:53:47 GMT, Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Fri, 05 May 2000 16:27:48 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
>wrote:
>
>: Automatic execution of random code is BAD BAD BAD.
>
>It's not automatic. You get a warning it might be a virus.
No. You get a warning that ANY attachment could infact
be code. It is implied that any attachment will be
automatically executed.
This is BAD BAD BAD.
You've essentially eliminated the utility of attachments.
Thanks Monopoly$oft.
--
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: Sat, 06 May 2000 00:41:43 GMT
On Fri, 05 May 2000 23:45:48 GMT, Ned Nondo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Jedidiah wrote:
>
>> That's quite a big IFF.
>>
>> [deletia]
>>
>
>
> I just wrote a pretty small perl script that searches through any
>files that the runner owns for anything that looks like an e-mail
>address and stores the addresses in a hash variable. It then uses mail
>or sendmail to send itself to other users. If you can get the receiver
>to run the script, will it create any less havoc then the I love you
>virus? It also could look for network perl modules and do the smtp
>transfer without sendmail. It could potentially run on any system that
>had perl installed.
So?
You've stil got to RUN it.
My attachment auto-decoder wont. The decoder itself has a command
line flag specifically telling it not to.
--
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why monopolies are a danger?
Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 20:46:14 -0400
Juan Pablo Hierro Álvarez wrote:
>
> ILOVEYOU
lol
--
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] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x
Subject: Re: X Windows must DIE!!!
Date: Sat, 06 May 2000 00:55:04 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Anton Deguet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on Fri, 05 May 2000 20:23:38 GMT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>Please, don't send to newsgroups in html... and it could be nice not to
>confuse X with Linux.
It is clear that the two shouldn't be confused. It is not clear that
the two shouldn't be combined, at least at a conceptual level
(I wouldn't want to combine them at a lower level, though).
After all, Windows is both an OS *and* a GUI, although the OS
might more properly be called "VMM32" or some such, since that's
the name, IIRC, of the low-level executable that is at the heart
of a running Windows system -- and it may depend in part whether
there's NT or Win9x (= ??? + DOS) underneath.
Linux, after all, is just an OS (a fact the zealots on both sides
would do well to remember :-) ). X is the windowing system -- and
it doesn't have a GUI -- that goes on top of Linux.
And whatever GUI one likes -- KDE, Gnome, whatever/Tk, Java, Athena
(if one can stomach it), homegrown -- can go on top of X. Note also
that one can mix and match, to some extent; one can use the KDE
window manager with Gnome utilities, or, in my case, the fvwm window
manager with Gnumeric for spreadsheets, or "kfm -w" for Web browsing.
One icky Windows design feature is that, if an app hangs during
processing, the window can't be iconified, resized, or moved -- only
killed. And that's if the OS doesn't go insane first, in the case of
Win9x -- even WinNT isn't immune; I have no idea what happened but
suddenly Internet Explorer and Outlook Explorer one day decided that the
iconify button (the one with the dash) should do nothing. Rebooting
"fixed" it, of course, although a logout might have done so as well;
I don't remember now.
There's also a windowing system called MGR, but I know little
about it apart from the fact that it exists. There's also libvga, whose
security problems are legion, and GGI/KGI, which is still out there
as far as I know.
There's also WinE -- www.winehq.com [*] -- which is an interesting
piece of programming, but attempts to encompass a far grander problem,
namely, that of executing (natively, in the case of x86 machines!)
Windows executables, trapping and emulating Windows API calls using X,
and other API calls in X, the OS, or internal code, as well. It's pretty
big, though (just like Windows :-) ), and quite alpha -- but it
does play Solitaire nicely, and can even run Wordpad,
Kiplinger Taxcut, and Unreal, I think. (Kiplinger Taxcut even
*installs*, now. Yet Another Reason Why I No Longer Need Windows...)
And, if one absolutely abhors graphics, there's always libcurses. :-)
Its main advantage is its miniscule footprint -- it's not horribly
easy to program, does not define high-level concepts such as a text
input field, drop-down menu, or a click button, and it has a number
of macros -- clear(), for one -- that can get in the way.
If one doesn't like Linux, most of these GUIs are available on FreeBSD,
as far as I know (I don't use it, but open source makes it a little
easier to port things :-) ). One can even port KDE or Gnome to
Windows + X, which reminds me of NeXT in its heyday, as it had
Display Postcript IIRC, and a separate X server if one wants to
e.g. display the output of X programs from a workstation. There
are a number of vendors which sell X servers and/or development
libraries for Windows; XFree86 is also reputed to compile on NT,
although I for one haven't tried it, and don't know how many tweaks
would be required.
[*] don't ask me why it's not www.winehq.org. :-)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Linux. Who says choice is a bad thing?
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 21:01:47 -0400
Christopher Smith wrote:
>
> "abraxas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8evl0m$iu5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >> standard, way of keeping data secure. Though 1000 page theses
> > >> really should be backed up to CDR on a regular basis while
> > >> changes are still underway.
> >
> > > So how are you supposed to work on your thesis if you can't modify it ?
> > > Harass root whenever you want to add a reference or write a paragraph ?
> >
> > You're an idiot. We're talking about linux and windows WORKSTATIONS,
> > dolt. You ARE root.
>
> So a script is just as lethal as it is on Windows, then.
Yes, but a script will not know your root password. On regular WIndows,
it does not need one, on NT people usually have "Power User" and thus
have sufficient rights to change.
>
> Glad you agree.
No, not really.
--
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: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 21:05:51 -0400
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> abraxas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8ev7qr$90j$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > If I kept a 1000 page thesis on my linux box, it also wouldnt be able to
> be
> > deleted by am 'rm'. You see, linux is unix-like. And unix has alot of
> > very useful features that some people conveniently forget about. One of
> > these nifty features is 'file and directory attributes' which can be
> > altered with the 'chattr' command.
> >
> > Though admittedly somewhat more effective under UFS, chattr is still very
> > usable under linux. a 'i' attribute on a file or directory will prevent
> it
> > from being deleted by ANY action.
>
> Except the execution of another chattr command removing it. Something a
> script could do, could it not?
One needs to run "su" to set the 'i' attribute, one needs root access to
remove it. It is a very unlikely that a UNIX user would run an e-mail
package as root, so even if the e-mail package did run a script, it
would not be able to affect the attribute bit.
--
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"
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
