Linux-Advocacy Digest #415, Volume #26 Mon, 8 May 00 20:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software ("David D. Huff Jr.")
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! (Alan Boyd)
Re: Microsoft invents XML! ("Stephen S. Edwards II")
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 ("Keith T. Williams")
Re: Browsers and e-mail (Jeff Szarka)
Re: Browsers and e-mail (Alan Boyd)
Linus on CNN (Mark S. Bilk)
Re: Linux IS THE ULTIMATE VIRUS(IOW LINUX SUXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX)!!!!!!!! (Gary Hallock)
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! (Jim Richardson)
Re: Linux IS THE ULTIMATE VIRUS(IOW LINUX SUXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX)!!!!!!!!
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! (Jim Richardson)
Re: apache.org defaced ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Web page rendering Linux (KDE) vs. windows 2000 (Jim Richardson)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "David D. Huff Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 22:51:45 GMT
Yes M$ did check to see if windows was being installed on anything but M$ . You
have no proof. I did!
Yes you could install windows 3.1 on DRDOS 6.1 but it would not run. Microsoft
did intentionally bomb the program!
This is a well documented historical fact! Caldera has 43 cases of documented
evidence.
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> John Poltorak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Of course, Microsoft's apps developers have a head start on everyone else
> > because they have inside knowledge of the development of the API,
> > and can even make a request for development of a specific API to suit
> > their application. And they may conveniently forget to tell any
> competitiors
> > (competitiors? :-), what a notion...) about this API.
>
> Do you really think that every Microsoft developer is given free access to
> the Windows source code?
>
> Given the number of pre-release beta leaks that get out of Redmond (some are
> clearly unintended), then if just about every developer had access, then the
> windows source would be plastered all over the internet.
>
> > Given Microsoft's track record for sabotaging competitors, I would not
> > be surprised if there were plenty of APIs which revealed whether the
> > app was Microsoft friendly and if not, some random spurious msgs
> > would be generated causing that app to fail or perform badly.
> > It happened when DR-DOS tried to run Windows, although it wasn't
> > random in that case. Who is to say MS Word runs better than Lotus WordPro
> > simply because Windows has some built in impedance for WordPro.
> > It's this sort of trick that Microsoft is very capable of pulling.
>
> First, get your facts straight. No release product ever gave any kind of
> message while running under DR-Dos. Second, even if one had, there were
> documented bugs at the time (which DR later fixed) that it seems quite
> logical for MS to warn people that incompatibility may occur. The fact that
> MS removed the warning that occured in ONE beta test after DR fixed the
> problem should tell you something.
>
> If MS pulled some trick like you claim, it WOULD be found. There are
> hundreds of people disassembling the Windows source code daily. Books have
> been published by people like Andrew Schulman documenting secrets discovered
> by disassembly.
>
> Finally, people claim that MS deliberately breaks software when updates are
> put out. If it's so easy to keep compatibility with other software when
> updating things, why has MacOS been one of the worst culprits over the years
> of breaking apps when new versions of the OS came out? Apple has very
> little to gain by breaking them, yet they done so quite regularly over the
> last 16 years. (Granted that this hasn't happen as much in recent years,
> but say.. the jump from OS 6 to OS 7 was quite painful).
>
> > This is exactly the reason why the DOJ is correct in splitting the two
> functions
> > up and removing the unfair advantage which Microsoft apps have always
> > had with respect to the API.
>
> Well, I guess IBM should be broken up as well (they have NT source code
> liscenses). So should Apple (Do they still own Claris?). So should Compaq
> (Compaq's DEC arm still produces some NT apps and they certainly have access
> to source code).
>
> > It would be interesting to conduct some tests to see if Netscape performed
> > unfavourable when compared against Internet Explorer when both access
> > a Web site hosted on MS IIS, and then contrast those results with tests
> > when a site is hosted on something else such as Apache.
>
> Don't you think such tests would have already been performed? There are
> people just looking for ways to discredit MS. Besides, MS doesn't need to
> discredit NS's speed, it's slow without them doing anything to discredit
> them, even under Linux.
------------------------------
From: Alan Boyd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 17:57:09 -0500
Christopher Smith wrote:
>
> > Wouldn't an easier fix be for the program (whatever it's called) that
> > reads the script and executes the commands just not auto-execute the
> > script? When a file is double clicked it would bring up an editor with
> > the script in an edit window.
>
> It would. A couple of lines of .reg file would change the default action
> for a .vbs file from "open" to "edit".
Hmmm, I'll change my registry at work tomorrow. And send it to my
co-workers.
> > To automate a task you would create an
> > icon with the command "whs -run SafeScript.vbs".
>
> The "open" action does that already for you - it inserts the "whs -run" (or
> whatever it is) in fron of the file you've double clicked.
>
> > OE would still need to check for .exe, .com, .bat and whatever else the
> > OS runs natively.
>
> No, OE shouldn't be involved at all in "checking". That's the job of a
> virus scanner.
OK, I should have been clearer. What I meant was that if the mail
clients check for the file types that run natively and warns about
executing them then it could ignore the other file types and NOT warn
about .txt, .jpg, .etc. But that would assume that any script utilities
would not auto-execute a script from an attachment but toss you into
edit mode instead. Either that or the file type are marked as
executable in the registry and the mail client checks there. By putting
one more entry on the file type the mail client doesn't have to worry
about future file types.
I think the worm/virus would not have been nearly as fast to spread if
all those people that opened it had seen a screen full of vbscript.
"That's a love letter?? <delete>"
--
"I don't believe in anti-anything. A man has to have a
program; you have to be *for* something, otherwise you
will never get anywhere." -- Harry S Truman
------------------------------
From: "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft invents XML!
Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 16:09:09 -0700
Reply-To: "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Eric Bennett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Yes, those innovative folks at Microsoft have done it again! This time,
> they've invented XML. Read about it here:
> http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19908-2000May6.html
>
> =====
> Ballmer hopes to build Microsoft's new identity partly around a
> computing language known as XML. Invented several years ago by two
> Microsoft technologists, it allows easy exchange of information among
> different devices, across the Internet.
> =====
> <rolling eyes>
As Christopher stated, you should be rolling your eyes as the
person who authored that article. It's well known that the
W3C established XML. Microsoft is not claiming credit for
it (at least, nothing is stated in that article, that would
suggest that they even implied that). It's just that some
dumb journalists can't get their facts straight, assuming
they even get facts at all, which they rarely do.
--
.-----.
|[_] :| Stephen S. Edwards II | NetBSD: Free of hype and license.
| = :| "Artificial Intelligence -- The engineering of systems that
| | yield results such as, 'The answer is 6.7E23... I think.'"
|_..._| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount
------------------------------
From: "Keith T. Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.lang.basic,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 19:06:55 -0400
I would like to point out that for Word '97, when it was originally issued,
the "backwards compatible format" was RTF, although it was stored with a DOC
extension. This was NOT satisfactory to most users and after a LOT of
complaints from users, there was an upgrade which allowed W'97 to actually
write 6.0/95 files as actual DOCs. Eventually they even issued a patch
which allowed 6.0/95 to read '97 files.
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Quoting Roger from alt.destroy.microsoft; Mon, 08 May 2000 02:13:52 GMT
> >On Thu, 04 May 2000 13:40:19 -0400, someone claiming to be T. Max
> >Devlin wrote:
> >
> >>Quoting Damien from alt.destroy.microsoft; 04 May 2000 17:27:11 GMT
> >
> >>>Is there any way to change the system to
> >>>make it save into the older formats by default?
> >
> >>Depends on the program. I haven't seen Office 2000 yet, but in Office
97, I
> >>think all three (Word, Excel, PowerPoint) finally have this feature.
> >
> >"Finally?" They've been able to since they were first offered as
> >Office.
>
> This is inaccurate. Word 2.0 was available in Office, and did not have
the
> ability to save into older formats by default. Investigating whether all
> other Microsoft applications in Office supported that feature at specific
> points in the past I will leave to you, Lord Weasel.
>
> >>Not that it is really anywhere near as functional as you would imagine.
The
> >>applications don't, for instance, register themselves as servers for the
older
> >>file types.
> >
> >Since the file types have not changed, this is wrong.
>
> "Word document" is not the same file type as "Word 6.0/7.0 Document" nor
> "Word97" document. The file extensions haven't changed. The file types
are
> listed separately in the registry, whether the file structures have or
not.
>
> >>So even though they can read the file, and the extension is the
> >>same, any program other than the Operating System that tries to launch a
file
> >>as an embedded object and the like will fail.
> >
> >Also wrong.
>
> Oh really?
>
> >>I would guess that this is
> >>excused with claims that it allows alternate applications to support
older
> >>file types, but that doesn't wash, as none of Microsoft's applications
are
> >>capable of co-existing with older versions very well in any other way.
> >
> >And you would guess wrong, since your guess is based on something
> >incorrect to begin with.
>
> Whatever.
>
> ***ZZZZZZZZZ***
>
>
>
> --
> T. Max Devlin
> Manager of Research & Educational Services
> Managed Services
> ELTRAX Technology Services Group
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
> my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
> applicable licensing agreement]-
>
>
> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
------------------------------
From: Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Browsers and e-mail
Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 23:16:27 GMT
On 8 May 2000 17:26:30 GMT,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Darren Winsper)
wrote:
:On Sun, 07 May 2000 22:24:03 GMT, Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:
:> I detailed a fix for all .vbs based viruses in another message.
:
:I discovered another vbs virus the other day. This time, it copied
:itself using the file-sharing system. I found a copy in my Startup
:folder. A quick glance through the code showed it simply tries to
:reproduce by probing random addresses and trying to copy itself.
:
:Yes, you may all now flame me for forgetting to disable file-sharing
:while on the internet.
My fix would work for this as well... About the best we can do until
Microsoft fixes the problem themselves.
------------------------------
From: Alan Boyd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Browsers and e-mail
Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 18:27:23 -0500
Christopher Smith wrote:
>
> > So, OK, what's the answer? I think we all agree that something like the
> > "ILOVEYOU" virus will continue to happen in increasing frequency. How do
> > you stop it? You can't keep arresting 14 year olds everytime this
> > happens, you have to decide that security is important.
>
> 1. Get out a clue stick and *cough*re-educate*cough* people who open
> attachments they know nothing about.
> 2. Get your sysadmin to distribute a little registry patch to make the
> default action of a .vbs file to "Edit" instead of "Open". Have said patch
> installed during a login script.
They might also change the text "Open" to "Run". And do the same with
.reg. Just a couple of days ago a friend was asking me what was wrong.
He was trying to "open" a .reg file and of course it was executing the
registry commands in the file. I explained he needed to "edit" the file
instead. He said no, he didn't want to edit it, he just wanted to look
at it and open should do that.
--
"I don't believe in anti-anything. A man has to have a
program; you have to be *for* something, otherwise you
will never get anywhere." -- Harry S Truman
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk)
Subject: Linus on CNN
Date: 8 May 2000 23:35:15 GMT
A 30 minute interview/story on Linus Torvalds appeared
on CNN last night. What a happy guy!
Here's the transcript:
http://cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0003/11/mld.00.html
"CNN Movers: Linus Torvalds Gives Away a Masterpiece Before
Stepping Down Road to Fame and Fortune - March 11, 2000"
("Fortune" means he hopes to make enough money to actually
buy a house in Silicon Valley, instead of renting. 8^)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 19:40:59 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux IS THE ULTIMATE VIRUS(IOW LINUX SUXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX)!!!!!!!!
The Cat wrote:
>
>
> Aol is the ultitmate virus. Those CD's keep replicating in my mailbox.
>
> BTW that was not me..
>
> TheCat (Steve)
>
> "Agent under Wine and powered by Mandrake 7.0"
I long for the good old days when they sent floppy disks in the mail. At
least those I could use as free blank disks. Those CDs just get tossed in
the garbage.
Gary
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 23:45:26 GMT
On Mon, 8 May 2000 17:25:57 -0500,
Erik Funkenbusch, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > The app in question is NOT perfectly aware of the questionable origin of
>the
>> > code. How does the app know the origin is questionable? Even more so,
>how
>> > does the app know that a given text file happens to be a harmful script?
>As
>> > far as the app knows, it's just text.
>>
>> I don't understand how you can say this. The app must be able to find
>> out what kind of file it is because it ends up running it. If it were
>> just a text file, it would open it up in notepad, no, it must have the
>> facilities to "run" it. All an app needs to do is make a few registry
>> calls.
>
>The email program doesn't know anything about the type of application. It
>just passes the file to the shell, and the shell knows what associations are
>set up. Even so, the shell doesn't know what kind of app it is either,
>since it's just doing what the user set it up to do. It's like a typist
>that types 150 words a minute. They just copy what they read and don't
>interpret it.
>
>
>
Seem's that here you are saying that it's not the email application's fault.
--
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]
Subject: Re: Linux IS THE ULTIMATE VIRUS(IOW LINUX SUXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX)!!!!!!!!
Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 23:43:32 GMT
proculous wrote:
> The net result of a virus infestation is a loss of productive time of
> the persons involved. What better example of Linux as an operating
> system.
>
> Talk about a waste of time! I spent 2 weeks trying to install this
> piece of shit and finally gave up. I have installed every OS under the
> sun and moon since DOS 1.0 and could not get this piece of junk, Linux
> to operate correctly.
>
> Is this what you call a next generation OS?
>
> What generation is that? The year 2025?
>
> Shitty looking fonts under X windows,
> Netscape?
> Netscape sucks under Windows also. NOBODY uses Netscape.
>
> Security?
> Every fucking port is WIDE OPEN WITH A DEFAULT MANDRAKE INSTALL...GOOD
> SHOW!!!!!
>
> Just setting up a simple network with a secure firewall has led me
> down a garden path of no less than 10 poorly written How-to's and a
> trek to numerous websites for information much of which is either
> outdated or in conflict with the last website I visited.
>
> Example, try the FAQ link on the samba website. It is a dead
> link...Great show guys..
>
> Apache seems to have been hacked, as I doubt they run Microsoft Back
> Office.
>
You don't hit girls, do you? Then you don't hack windows. But would you
transform yourself to a women to not get hit?!?
>
> Tasks that are soooooo easy under Windows are a nightmare under Linux.
> Networking for example....
>
> A couple of clicks and it works under Windows. How is this even
> remotely possible under Linux?
>
> Quite frankly I really don't give a flying fuck because Linux has
> pissed me of so much with it's archaic style of doing things that I
> intend to let every single person I know the truth about Linux and
> spread the word that LINUX SUX to all that will listen.
>
> It really does suck the big Onion.....
>
> PROCULOUS
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 23:48:19 GMT
On 8 May 2000 21:29:55 GMT,
abraxas, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy M. Buchenrieder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas) writes:
>
>> [...]
>
>>>Apparantly you missed my followup post.
>
>> Well, maybe. Usenet isn't a highly reliable medium.
>
>>>Sorry to say that I do not have a "certification" in linux, but I do have
>>>enough experience to understand that it is at its *very* best, GNU-unix.
>
>> [...]
>
>> It is mostly GNUish, but you can alway use the sources of other UN*X
>> variants in case you don't like the GNU-versions. You'll perhaps have
>> to do some editing on the Makefiles, but that's it.
>
>I understand this, but most new linux users do not. I look at 'wheel'
>as a nessesary bit of security, while GNU sees it as a bullshit piece
>of fascism. Since GNU controls most of how linux is developed, most
>people who use it wont get the chance to make the decision for
>themselves.
>
>
>
(raises hand in ignorance, awaiting massive flamage :)
what is "wheel" ?
--
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]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: apache.org defaced
Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 23:47:32 GMT
abraxas wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Drestin Black wrote:
> >>
> >> http://www.attrition.org/mirror/attrition/2000/05/03/www.apache.org/
> >>
> >> say... what's that at the bottom of the page?!
>
> > considering that NT/IIS accounts for about 20% of web servers,
> > and
> > about - consistently - over 60% of the defacements, I don't think
> > you are really going to get anywhere with this. Put your tail
> > back between your legs and go back to c.o.m.n.a.
>
> No kidding. This is a pissing in the wind of the giant fall that
> microsoft is currently taking.
>
> -----yttrx
Nah, we asked a graphical artist to create a microsoft backoffice logo
(this one isnt an official one). We used it to draw attention to the
warning. There are no secret connections with microsoft (at least not that
i'm allowed to talk about :))
Grz.
{} - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Subject: Re: Web page rendering Linux (KDE) vs. windows 2000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 23:58:56 GMT
On Mon, 8 May 2000 22:17:28 +0200,
Mig Mig, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>Jim Richardson wrote:
>
>> > - app to view realtime what connections are made right now
>> netstat, ethereal, tcpdump, others
>
>Ethereal i use but its not usable for my purposes. Actually i fell over
>"etherape" (etherape.sourceforge.net) that does what i wanted.. a bit more
>development and it really gets to be a valuable application.
>
>I can recomend "etherape" if you want a live update of what connections
>youre "involved" in.
>
>Cheers
That was the other one I couldn't remember, I like etherape, also, using Tkined
(along with the scotty tools for tcl) has some similar features (and then some)
to etherape. Mostly for snmp stuff, but does more also.
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
