Linux-Advocacy Digest #418, Volume #26 Mon, 8 May 00 23:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: KDE is better than Gnome (Christopher Browne)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Eric Bennett)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Thingfishhhh)
Re: Are we equal? (Christopher Browne)
Re: Let's POLL! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux IS THE ULTIMATE VIRUS(IOW LINUX SUXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX)!!!!!!!! (Gary Hallock)
Re: Linux IS THE ULTIMATE VIRUS(IOW LINUX SUXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX)!!!!!!!! (Gary Hallock)
Re: Which OS is WORST? ("none2")
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! (Alan Boyd)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Alan Baker)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Joseph)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Joseph)
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: B.G says if MS is split, viruses will be easier to write. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Browsers and e-mail (Andrew)
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! (mlw)
Re: Linux IS THE ULTIMATE VIRUS(IOW LINUX SUXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX)!!!!!!!! (Leslie
Mikesell)
Re: What have you done? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Crossposted-To: comp.windows.x.kde,tw.bbs.comp.linux
Subject: Re: KDE is better than Gnome
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 09 May 2000 01:40:49 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when David Steuber would say:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus) writes:
>
>' Funny to see someone who calls himself a federalist flame Germans.
>' You're probably too busy being a red-blooded American to once get some
>' real education or even only a look over the edge of your plate.
>
>Education is overrated. It's just another way for the government to
>brainwash you.
Right...
>Try to remember that all the good things in life were invented here.
>We invented the hamberger, and french fry (why did we name it that?).
>We didn't invent lawyers, but we did perfect them. If only they
>wouldn't scatter like roaches when something starts to go, "beep
>beep!"
Hmm...
What sorts of things are considered "good things in life?"
- Fine cuisine?
Invented in America? Not...
- Fine cheese?
Invented in America? Not...
- Fine coffee?
Invented in America? Not...
There's only one variety of coffee bean, Kona, that is notable, that
is grown in the USA. And it's not from the continental US...
Heading to the more controversial...
- Fine wine.
Invented in America? I think not...
- Fine cigars.
The "top" ones appear to be produced by an outright _enemy_ of the
US...
- The love of a fine (wo)man.
Predates the establishment of the United States by a goodly number
of millenia...
--
Rules of the Evil Overlord #8. "When I've captured my adversary and he
says, "Look, before you kill me, will you at least tell me what this
is all about?'' I'll say, "No." and shoot him."
<http://www.eviloverlord.com/lists/overlord.html>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
------------------------------
From: Eric Bennett <[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 21:44:31 -0500
In article <KIGR4.202$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik Funkenbusch"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So should Apple (Do they still own Claris?). So should
Claris does not exist. Part of what was Claris was spun off into
Filemaker Inc., and Apple internalized the rest.
--
Eric Bennett ( http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/ )
Cornell University / Chemistry & Chemical Biology
Hofstadter's Law: It always takes longer than you expect,even when you take into
account Hofstadter's Law.
------------------------------
From: Thingfishhhh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 18:53:02 -0700
In article
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]
.net>, "Karen Mansbridge-Wood"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 08 May 2000 03:43:31 -0500, Eric Bennett wrote:
>
> >If we carry this argument to its logical conclusion, Gates is making a
> >case that the best thing for consumers would be to have a single
> >software company--Microsoft.
>
> And I suspect Bill Gates actually *believes* just that.
> Megalomaniacs often are deluded in that manner, imagining that
> their control is something that benefits everyone else and is
> therefore completely justified. They are often genuinely
> horrified that anyone would question that assumption.
Not only that, but you have the king uber-geek of all time, who's used
to being kissed up to and revered, about to be pulled down quite a few
pegs, and I don't think that's sitting too well with his over-grown
little ego. I think the idea of losing a lot of the butt smooching and
instant, automatic groveling he's used to and demands is scaring the
bejeezus out of little Billy.
It explains the ludicrous and inane media campaign they're running - if
they are so inncent, why not let the *facts* decide the case?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Subject: Re: Are we equal?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 09 May 2000 01:55:34 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Jim Richardson would say:
>On 8 May 2000 12:45:56 -0700,
>Couldn't agree more, the quickest way for the US to get rid of Castro, would be
>open trade, communism doesn't survive when there's free trade. The anti-castro
>hardliners are Castro's biggest allies.
>
>To bring this back on topic, are there any Cuban distros? :)
Only available in Canada... :-)
--
All ITS machines now have hardware for a new machine instruction --
XOI Execute Operator Immediate.
Please update your programs.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - - <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Let's POLL!
Date: Tue, 09 May 2000 01:50:24 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Let me just say that,
>
> Just because some 12 year old kid launches a VB script virus,
> and YOUR company ingests this virus, should the employee's
> who have double clicked our the attachment using YOUR companies=20
> OUTLOOK EXPRESS be disciplined?
>
No. We make a point of hiring morons, we expect that they will behave
like morons. We pay moron wages and offer moron benefits to insure that
we have the staff we do.
>
> Why do you figure that corporations establish policies=20
> such as these? Don't they realize that someday, someone,
> will indeed take this to court and challenge this.
> Do corporate institutions think they can WIN in a situation
> where THEY gave the employee in question the power to
> EXECUTE a virus from the software the corporation provided to
> ALL their employee's, trained or NOT.,
>
Because we have a proclivity towards hiring morons, anything that they
do wrong is really management's fault. So when a moron screws up
because of a stupid imbecilic management decision, we fire the moron.
>
> Is it intelligent for a company to have a policy, where by,
> it is forbidden to click on any E-mail attachments?
>
Our employees are so stupid it would take years to explain a policy that
complex to them.
>
> Is it intelligent for a company to DRILL your systems administrator=20
> for allowing the virus to come into your company, even though there
is=20
> NOTHING he can really do about it!
>
System administrators are cannon fodder, whipping boys, sacraficial
goats. A simple castration now and then keeps the rest in line.
>
> Does it make any sense to continue to blame the 12 year old
> who wrote the script and sent it out via an E-mail to drop
> =BD the Microsoft equipped corporations around the world?
> Shouldn't we make it a policy within the United States to
> EXPECT terrorist actions from within and abroad based on
> past actions, example, OKC? Does it make sense to you
> that corporations such as defense contractors will put
> up huge concrete barricades, and hire guards equipped with
> bomb sniffing dogs yet continue to allow Microsoft in their
> offices as the mainstay of their E-mail handling clients?
>
Oh darn, you guessed... I'm a defense contractor.
>
> Have you heard someone within your organization BLAME the
> problem we've just experienced with the ILOVEYOU virus on=20
> the fact that the operating system was connected to the
> internet in the first place? Does this kind of explanation
> logic seem flawed to you in any way?
>
We don't have people THAT smart in our organization.
>
> Wouldn't it be MORE intelligent to run an OS such as LINUX
> ,where by, employee's could click on A script or .exe and
> have nothing happen as it WON'T run it! They can look at it
> but it won't trash out their corporate world then E-mail
> the rest of the world with a copy of itself?
>
But who would we sue?
>
> How many people have you met who still don't seem to understand
that=20
> Microsoft operating systems are based on a
> nearly 20 year old tradition of a stand alone P.C. Concept?
> That security was never an issue for Microsoft? Do you now
> understand why Microsoft says security isn't an issue with
> Windows?
>
Almost everyone in management with purchasing authority here....
>
> I'm going to be very curious to read the answers if anybody
> responds on this newsgroup. I would love to read the answers.
What=20
> are YOUR answers to these questions.
>
> Charlie
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 22:16:29 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux IS THE ULTIMATE VIRUS(IOW LINUX SUXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX)!!!!!!!!
2:1 wrote:
>
>
> OK, buy a distro.
> Put the floppy in the drive (mine came with a boot floppy)
> Put the CD in the drive
> Push reset...
>
> -Ed
And even if you just bought the cheapbytes CD or downloaded and burned the CD yourself,
there is usually a boot floppy image on the CD. Get access to another computer for a
minute and create a boot floppy, and your ready to go.
Gary
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 22:24:31 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux IS THE ULTIMATE VIRUS(IOW LINUX SUXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX)!!!!!!!!
David Steinberg wrote:
> proculous ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> : 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.
>
> Every operating system under the sun and moon, eh?
>
> SunOS/Solaris?
> AIX?
> BSD?
> SCO?
>
Don't forget VM/ESA, OS/390, and OS/400. I doubt he ever installed any of
these. I haven't either, but I did install Linux for S/390 on VM/ESA
(well, only on a temp disk since I didn't have enough permanent disk
space). It was a piece of cake.
Gary
------------------------------
From: "none2" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Which OS is WORST?
Date: Tue, 09 May 2000 14:41:00 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Linux of course....It sucks so bad, has no usable applications and is
> truely a nostaglic trip back into how computing was done in the 1970's
> Green screen city dude..... In short, we are not interested...
>
> Take your shit operating system somewhere else.
>
> Windows rulllezzz dude's.....And don't you forget it!!!!
trolling huh
its ok to be scared of free software.
------------------------------
From: Alan Boyd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 21:32:36 -0500
Christopher Smith wrote:
>
> "Alan Boyd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Christopher Smith wrote:
> > >
> > 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>"
>
> But the point is that means the mailer has to know about the files.
> Currently, if you "launch" an attachment, the mailer just hands the file off
> to the shell (explorer) saying "the user wants to open this". Explorer then
> performs the default action on the file (eg for a jpeg it would fir eup some
> viewer program and pass it the file). For fairly obvious reasons, the
> default action when you activate a script is to run it.
Are you saying the mail client should always warn the user when opening
an attachment or never warn them?
What I'm suggesting is that if the mail client doesn't have that short
list (exe, com, bat, etc) then it should take the attachment's extension
(".etc") and look it up in the registry. It would see that ".etc" is
listed as an "etcfile". When it looks up "etcfile\shell" it could see
the default action and a new value called "Executable" that might be set
to "Yes". Then it would warn about running the attachment. If it's
"No" or missing it wouldn't warn. Seems simple enough to me and the
mail client still doesn't care about the files themselves.
--
"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: Alan Baker <[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 19:34:06 -0700
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <KIGR4.202$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik Funkenbusch"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>> So should Apple (Do they still own Claris?). So should
>
>
>Claris does not exist. Part of what was Claris was spun off into
>Filemaker Inc., and Apple internalized the rest.
And please note (not you Eric, but others following this thread) that
Claris was spun off in the first place to answer objections that
developers had about Apple not only selling the Macs but selling (and
sometimes bundling) software that was in direct competition with
offerings from third parties.
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall to that
wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you sit in the
bottom of that cupboard."
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 19:37:27 -0400
From: Joseph <[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
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> John Poltorak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In <KIGR4.202$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik Funkenbusch"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > >> 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.
That's a lie. The BETA was released to the public and the damage was
done - damages were claimed and the case was deemed to have merit to
stand trial.
> > This is complete rubbish.
> >
> > Microsoft was recently sued by Caldera over this exact issue.
> >
> > Microsoft decided to settle out of court rather than risk tarnishing
> > its image any further.
> >
> > It would not have looked very good in light of the concurrent DOJ
> > trial into Monopoly abuse. Microsoft settled because the case against
> > it was overwhelming and to pursue it would only have brought
> > further bad publicity.
> >
> > I can't believe you are actually denying this.
>
> It's fact. Learn to research your facts before you jump to conclusions.
He did - you lied.
> http://www.ddj.com/articles/1993/9309/9309d/9309d.htm
>
> "The message first appeared in build 61, a late-stage beta, and seemed to
> disappear in the final retail release of Windows 3.1. "
The offending code was put in the rel;eased product, a BETA. the
Offending code was **still** in the commerical GA product. A switch was
added since the BETA turn the code on and off.
MS did such a horrible job at the anti-trust trial becasue it was used
to lying and making up definitions of words. These bad habits are
indeed hard to break as you show us, but actually they are good - the
argumentative style has doomed MS to being split up and letf advocates
endless frustrations.
Here's the latest joke: MS is now trying to offer their verison of
remedies to offenses MS still insists never happened.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 19:51:06 -0400
From: Joseph <[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
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, josco
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> |On Mon, 8 May 2000, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> |
> || His claim is that all software developers benefit from the work done in
> || Microsoft application divisions, since Microsoft takes that code and makes
> || it available to 3rd parties via Windows API's.
> |
> |In a haste to define their rights to innovate, MS has begun to
> |admit their own developers have an unfair advantage.
>
> Hopefully, Judge Jackson and/or the DOJ has somebody clipping the
> statements being made by Gates, Ballmer, et al for use at any remedy
> hearings he may grant to MS.
Yeah they do.
MS's Gates was trash talking Palm at the MS PocketPC launch. He was
quoted in ZDPubs as calling the Palm installed base and lead in the
market so smll it was "rounding error" and the man went on to say MS did
not have the early lead in many markets (Excel Word) and promised to
beat Palm. MS then submits evidence that Palm and alternative devices
to PCs are a current threat to windows.
According to the NYTimes, MS's argumentative and blatent denial of wrong
doing unified the States and DOJ.
Seriously, the one place a technical court case is lost is over
contradictions made by one party. I beleive the legal term is
Estopple. In short the arguments MS makes have to be consitent and
logical over time or they lose credibility and the technical
interpretaitons they put forth are greately weaken. Also, facts
presented in one case are admissible in another so this trial's evidence
and what MS does in software are indeed relevant in the future.
Likewise the unitiy presented by 20 enties in their case gives it
merit. That 20 can agree on techncial issues and MS disagrees has
meaning. MS would have been wise to give a little and split the States
and DOJ.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: alt.lang.basic,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: 8 May 2000 21:48:01 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Roger <roger@.> wrote:
>
>>Sorry, but it is worse than that! If you create a file (just put a
>>character in a document) and you can't open that file with the older
>>version of the program. For reference, Works 3.0 creates a document
>>with just the letter "A" in it and you can't open it with the Works
>>2.0 version! That means that everybody in the company needs to
>>upgrade to 3.0 for compatibility reasons. All this because you can't
>>buy a license for Works 2.0 anymore. Microsoft is famous for this
>>kind of stuff. Look at the upgrading of RTF files for a very good
>>example. Every version of software that uses RTF for compiling
>>something seems to have it's own version of the extensions for doing
>>the same job. I have just put my foot down and am refusing to do any
>>upgrades unless the upgrade is backward compatible and with
>>Microsoft's propensity for not providing the standard being the same,
>>I am just not upgrading.
>
>Yeah ! I mean, it's not like Works 3.0 can save in 2.0 format if
>backwards compatibility is an iss...
>
>No, wait: it's * exactly * like that. Your point was, again?
So, all you have to do is find every person in the world who
might send you a word document (I assume you do work with a
lot of other people...) and let them all know which format
they should save in. Or you bite the bullet and buy the
newest version yourself. Was there some other choice?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: B.G says if MS is split, viruses will be easier to write.
Date: Tue, 09 May 2000 02:38:34 GMT
You're not reading this correctly. Bill is actually saying "if you
split Microsoft up, we're going to intentionally do a worse job of
security than we do now just to punish you."
Like that's even possible.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Andrew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Browsers and e-mail
Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 22:41:33 -0400
Leslie Mikesell wrote:
>
> In article <zAuR4.74$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> "open" only becomes a problem when "document" and "program"
> >> become too blurred.
> >
> >The script is a document.
>
> Then it is likely that you would want to be able to view the contents
> sometimes, or edit it instead of running it. Why is exectuting
> the default?
For a second imagine the following:
============
% ./setup
What do you wish to do with this script?
Please choose one of the following:
1. Execute this script with the command line parameters you specified
2. Execute this script with no parameters
3. View this file with emacs
4. View this file with vi
5. Pipe this file to more
6. Pipe this file to less
7. Execute the script and pipe the output to /dev/null
8. Execute a different command
9. Cancel and do nothing
_
===============
This is the command line analogy to what you asked of Windows. It's pretty
obvious that typing the name of a script would execute it, just as
double-clicking on a script should execute it. To do something other than the
default takes a little work. Some other files, like Windows .inf files and .reg
files (which i think MS got backwards - "Edit" should be the default for .reg)
should have other logcal defaults. Scripts should, for all intents and purposes
act like binary executables to the user of the shell.
This is logical UI design. How sound this is for security is another matter
entirely.
Andrew
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 22:53:32 -0400
Jim Richardson wrote:
>
> 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.
I assert that an e-mail client has NO RIGHT WHAT SO EVER to RUN A
PROGRAM or OPEN a FILE unless it knows exctly what IT IS DOING!!!!!! An
E-mail client MUST ACT AS a gatekeeper!! If the e-mail client can not
tell the difference between harmless data, i.e. *.mp3 or *.jpeg and
executable content i.e. *.doc, *.exe or *.vbs, then it should be pulled
from the market right away. If it is just as easy to open a *.jpeg or
*.mp3 file as it is to open a *.exe or *.vbs then the e-mail client is
broken. The e-mail client should go kicking and screaming with dialog
boxes with increasing seriousness: "You are about to run a program from
an unknown source, this could be a virus,"<OK><CANCEL> "Running programs
received through e-mail is usually a bad idea, contact the sender for
confirmation on the validity of this program" <OK><CANCEL> "Your system
and data can be compromised and data loss can occur if you
continue."<OK><CANCEL> "This is your last chance, selecting <OK> may
cause your system to become unstable and result in data
loss."<OK><CANCEL>
> --
> Jim Richardson
> Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
> WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
> Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
--
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] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: Linux IS THE ULTIMATE VIRUS(IOW LINUX SUXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX)!!!!!!!!
Date: 8 May 2000 21:57:15 -0500
In article <LOCR4.2222$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
whistler <blahblah> wrote:
>>
>>1) put CD in drive
>>2) push reset
>>3) click OK at all the prompts.
>>
>
>Only if you PC is bootable from CD, if you have a SCSI card it may or may not
>be bootable.
Add another two minutes to copy the floppy boot image off the CD
with the provided program if the CD won't boot.
>If you are willing to accept the basic configuration and it
>works on your system. If you did your homework the cards in your PC will have
>support in Linux, if not you are SOL.
Of course, if you buy something that intentionally locks you into
a single-vendor OS (winmodem/winprinter???) you can't blame
someone else for that problem.
>And now you have installed a basic Linux system with minimal security.
One of those prompts was for the security level. You might also
be interested to note that RedHat 6.2 no longer starts most network
services for a workstation install (inetd doesn't even run).
Personally, I want most of services running - that's why I
have the machine - but if you don't and can't figure out how to
stop them there is now an easy way to get there.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What have you done?
Date: Tue, 09 May 2000 02:46:09 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What has your company done to stop further virus contamination
> to the Microsoft Operating system environment?
We're a Novell shop and run GroupWise. Running MS software is like
having unprotected sex.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
