Linux-Advocacy Digest #420, Volume #26 Tue, 9 May 00 06:13:04 EDT
Contents:
mail all users ("Jason Kayarian")
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Karel Jansens)
news: Oracle $199 web device, runs on linux, not windows (bob@nospam)
Re: Linux IS THE ULTIMATE VIRUS(IOW LINUX SUXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX)!!!!!!!!
([EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul E. Larson))
Re: Linux IS THE ULTIMATE VIRUS(IOW LINUX SUXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX)!!!!!!!!
([EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul E. Larson))
Re: news: Oracle $199 web device, runs on linux, not windows ([EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Paul E. Larson))
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software ("Phil Brewster")
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Brett Ryan)
Re: linux as Netscape platform (s. keeling)
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! (M. Buchenrieder)
Re: Microsoft invents XML! ("2 + 2")
Re: Microsoft invents XML! ("2 + 2")
Re: Penguins (Faux_Pseudo)
Re: mail all users (nr)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (John Poltorak)
Re: Built in Virus Scanners! ("Boris")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Jason Kayarian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: mail all users
Date: Tue, 9 May 2000 01:18:29 -0700
Hello,
I'm running RH 5.2 and would like to send an e-mail message to every user on
the system without having to do each one individually. Any ideas? Is there a
command on the system for this or do I have to do it with a script. Would
anyone please mail me directly at my address, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thank You
Jason
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)
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: 9 May 2000 06:45:24 GMT
Peter Ammon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> What did happen is that Microsoft inserted an error message into five
> pieces of a beta copy of Windows 3.1. The error message told the user
> that there was some problem and that they should contact Windows beta
> support. The program then continued to run. The code was there in the
> final release of Windows 3.1, but the error message didn't show up.
> (There were tens of thousands of beta testers for Windows 3.1, by the
> way, so it certaintly had some impact). Microsoft also made a feeble
> effort to encrypt the code, so it's pretty clear that they were trying
> to hide their efforts from Caldera and the DOJ.
>
I still have here on my shelves both the copies of Windows 3.1 and
DR-DOS 6, as well as the patch disk a friend gave me to make Windows
run on DR-DOS. None of those copies is a beta. Windows 3.1 will indeed
refuse to run on DR-DOS, unless the patch is applied. Explain?
Karel Jansens
jansens_at_attglobal_dot_net
========================================================
VapourSig 1.1 has been postponed indefinitely
========================================================
------------------------------
From: bob@nospam
Subject: news: Oracle $199 web device, runs on linux, not windows
Date: 8 May 2000 22:35:24 -0700
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20000508/tc/oracle_internet_3.html
"The machine runs on a Linux operating system, has a
266-megahertz microprocessor, 64 megabytes of memory,
a 56K modem and 24-times CD-ROM drive."
------------------------------
From: whistler<blahblah>@twcny.rr.com (Paul E. Larson)
Subject: Re: Linux IS THE ULTIMATE VIRUS(IOW LINUX SUXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX)!!!!!!!!
Date: Tue, 09 May 2000 06:45:58 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>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.
>
Maybe... maybe not. Depends on the PC. Up until recently the Adaptec
AHA-2930U2 card wasn't supported. USB is only starting to be supported in the
distributions.
Paul
Get rid of the blahs to email me :}
http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumIndex?u=67063&a=635208 - 1999 Hancock Airshow
http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumIndex?u=67063&a=2618171 - National Warplane Museum
------------------------------
From: whistler<blahblah>@twcny.rr.com (Paul E. Larson)
Subject: Re: Linux IS THE ULTIMATE VIRUS(IOW LINUX SUXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX)!!!!!!!!
Date: Tue, 09 May 2000 06:50:56 GMT
In article <8f7uqb$1ou1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell) wrote:
>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 there is one.
>>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.
>
Who is taking about Windows only devices. Buy a bleeding edge card and 9 times
out of 10 you are SOL. It has gotten better, but it still ain't there yet.
Paul
Get rid of the blahs to email me :}
http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumIndex?u=67063&a=635208 - 1999 Hancock Airshow
http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumIndex?u=67063&a=2618171 - National Warplane Museum
------------------------------
From: whistler<blahblah>@twcny.rr.com (Paul E. Larson)
Subject: Re: news: Oracle $199 web device, runs on linux, not windows
Date: Tue, 09 May 2000 07:05:44 GMT
In article <8f882s$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, bob@nospam wrote:
>http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20000508/tc/oracle_internet_3.html
>
>"The machine runs on a Linux operating system, has a
>266-megahertz microprocessor, 64 megabytes of memory,
>a 56K modem and 24-times CD-ROM drive."
>
>
"People would still have to obtain Internet access elsewhere, either through
paid or free Internet service providers, though most schools have networks
through which children can connect to the Internet."
Okay.... and how would these schools connect these machines to the network
without a NIC?
It's a failure already! Have to wonder if they ever do any research? Add a
10baseT NIC and a ZIP, JAZZ, or Superdisk and you have a potential winner.
Paul
Get rid of the blahs to email me :}
http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumIndex?u=67063&a=635208 - 1999 Hancock Airshow
http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumIndex?u=67063&a=2618171 - National Warplane Museum
------------------------------
From: "Phil Brewster" <[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: 9 May 2000 01:22:45 -0600
On Mon, May 8, 2000 6:21 PM, Christopher Smith <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>"David D. Huff Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Yes M$ did check to see if windows was being installed on anything but
M$
>.. You
>> have no proof. I did!
>
>Obviously, you didn't.
>
>> Yes you could install windows 3.1 on DRDOS 6.1 but it would not run.
>Microsoft
>> did intentionally bomb the program!
>
>I used to run Windows 3.0, 3.1 and 3.11 on DR-DOS 5.x and 6.x.
>
>IOW, I beg to differ with your assertion.
>
>> This is a well documented historical fact! Caldera has 43 cases of
>documented
>> evidence.
>
>It's not a well documented historical fact because it's not true.
>
>
>
Since there seems to be a lack of familiarity with what is a matter of
public record at this point and what is not, here's some of the
documentation from the Caldera case:
http://theregister.co.uk/991105-000023.html
IIRC, in the early '90s Dr Dobbs Journal also published a detailed analysis
of the disassembled code showing that at _some_ point, Win3.x did indeed
contain an 'error trap' for detecting DR-DOS.
Assuming the error trap was 'only' in a beta release of Win3.x, it could
still very easily have instigated a migration away from DR-DOS due to the
apparent 'incompatibilities' suggested by the messages telling users to
contact the beta center, etc., among 'n' number of corporate customers
planning to move to Windows.
And, the internal emails recently published in the Caldera case would tend
to indicate that this exercise in 'industrial sabotage' was indeed the
intent among those responsible for the Win3.x project at Microsoft, at the
time.
Now, I won't speak from first-hand experience, because I was a loyal IBM
PC-DOS user at the time and therefore never saw any messages relating to
DR-DOS at all, but these are the published facts of the matter wrt DR-DOS
and Win3.x that I am aware of.
If anyone should wish to contend that this is nothing but an urban legend
at this point, then I must seriously wonder how one is to explain the
internal memos at Microsoft that seem to 'target' DR-DOS, precisely as
Caldera and others have alleged, in the meantime.
Thus, it was interesting to note that, at least according to The Register,
Microsoft apparently no longer disputes these facts of the case per se,
seeking instead to present the emails in a harmless light, as just being a
little 'good-natured fun' at the expense of a competitor, and etc...
<*Anyone owning recordings of 'Mack the Knife' should cue them up now, to
provide the appropriate background mood for this sentiment...*>
Cheers,
------------------------------
From: Brett Ryan <[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: Tue, 09 May 2000 02:41:02 -0500
"G. Wayne Hines" wrote:
> In an earlier episode, "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.
>
> What about Gates' suggestion that splitting Microsoft would make
> it less able to adequately provide security to protect consumers
> against such things as the "I Love You" virus? I laughed after I
> got over the urge to toss my cookies.
>
> gwh
>
You know something. I was listening to Rush L. Monday afternoon
while getting ready for work and he mentioned that exact same comment.
By his own commentary on what Bill G. said I think that he actually woke
up and decided his pro MS stance was incorrect. I, as an OS/2 user,
personally thought that both Bill G.'s and Rush L.'s comments on the
issue were quite funny overall. Sad day for MS. Good day for me.
Having Fun,
Brett
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (s. keeling)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.networking
Subject: Re: linux as Netscape platform
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 09 May 2000 08:00:07 GMT
On 27 Apr 2000 03:33:23 -0400, Yeoh Yiu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm thinking of setting up a web kiosk.
> (user accounts/security is not an issue)
>
> Is Netscape on linux as stable as Netscape on NT ?
Yes. I run 4.07 (Navigator, not Communicator), and it's never crashed!
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stephen) TopQuark Software & Serv. Enquire within.
[sed 's/NO@SPAM./@/g'] Contract programmer, server bum.
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (M. Buchenrieder)
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: Tue, 9 May 2000 06:19:17 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson) writes:
>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.
Well, the "wheel" group concept itself will work just fine on Linux -
it is just Stallmann's ideas on user rights that caused him to take
out the feature of the GNU "su" program. So it's just "su" that exhibits
this behaviour. I mean, we're not talking about changing the kernel
internals here :)
>>
>>
>>
>(raises hand in ignorance, awaiting massive flamage :)
> what is "wheel" ?
It is a concept that will not allow ordinary users accessing certain
commands that need root priviledges, even when if they knew the root
password for to become "root" using "su" . This practically limits the
access for the "root" user to just the console.
Michael
--
Michael Buchenrieder * [EMAIL PROTECTED] * http://www.muc.de/~mibu
Lumber Cartel Unit #456 (TINLC) & Official Netscum
Note: If you want me to send you email, don't munge your address.
------------------------------
From: "2 + 2" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft invents XML!
Date: Tue, 9 May 2000 04:26:55 -0400
Esther Schindler wrote in message ...
>Eric, I think you're absolutely right. This is the sort of "create an
>impression but don't actually *say*..." PR that Microsoft is good at.
>(And their expertise at PR makes me wonder what could have been
>accomplished if their technology was up to the same level....)
>
>For instance, I (and, I dare say, a thousand other journalists) got an
>email from a Microsoft PR person saying, in part, "Knowing you're a
>person who follows Microsoft and XML, I just wanted to
>bring to your attention a survey released on March 23rd by Zona
>Research that illustrates how Microsoft is the leader in driving the
>adoption of XML" and pointing to a Zona Research report at
>http://www.zonaresearch.com/deliverables/qemail/qstat032300.htm
>
>Among the text claiming that "Microsoft's involvement with XML is
>deep" they say, "Microsoft initiated the XML schema work at the W3C
>with the submission of XML-Data over two years ago (Jan. 1998). They
>helped form the W3C working group for XML schemas and they have been,
>and will continue to be, active participants in this exciting
>process."
>
>Well, that part is actually _true_. They _are_ involved in XML.
That was a skillful spin-out. "Initiated" becomes "involved."
DOM, the Document Object Model, was another Microsoft "involvement."
Now why do you suppose Microsoft was interested in these W3C standards?
2 + 2
>But if
>someone doesn't know the XML landscape it would be entirely too easy
>to get the wrong impression (which is nonetheless "good for Microsoft"
>from Microsoft's point of view), that Microsoft "invented" XML.
>
>Sigh. It's tough to be knowledgeable about every technology out
>there... and even tougher to know every technology well enough to
>recognize it when someone misleads you.
Sigh. Angst. Oh My! If I could have only been born to be a reporter!
2 + 2
>
>--Esther Schindler
> Technology Editor
> Sm@rt Reseller (soon to be Sm@rt Partner)
> http://www.zdnet.com/sr
>
>On Mon, 8 May 2000 18:06:04, Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>| In article <8f6ma8$7dp$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Christopher Smith"
>| <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>|
>| > "Eric Bennett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>| > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>| > > In article <8f5ivb$24u$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Christopher Smith"
>| > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>| > >
>| > >
>| > > > Hopefully you're rolling your eyes at David Ignatius, the writer of
>| > > > that
>| > > > piece ?
>| > >
>| > > I'm not sure who to roll my eyes at. Do you think Ignatius just made
a
>| > > random guess at who invented XML, or do you think Microsoft gave him
a
>| > > hint?
>| >
>| > Given the ignorance exhibited by the average journo, I'd have my money
on
>| > the former.
>|
>| I agree with the point David Steinberg makes.
>|
>| In the past, I've seen Microsoft spit out press releases where they
>| leave the uninitiated reader with the distinct impression that Microsoft
>| created the basic technology discussed in the release. Microsoft's
>| ClearType press releases are one example. They don't actually
>| explicitly claim that Microsoft started that entire line of work, but
>| the releases are clearly crafted to leave the reader with that
>| impression. I would not be surprised of Ignatius fell victim to this
>| sort of thing. If you don't know the history of the technology, you
>| don't see through the tricky wording. That is what I mean by Microsoft
>| giving "a hint". They probably didn't explicitly tell Ignatius they
>| invented XML, but left him with some extremely leading comments that
>| pointed him clearly in that direction.
>|
>| If so, I think I can roll my eyes at both Ignatius and Microsoft.
>|
>| --
>| 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: "2 + 2" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft invents XML!
Date: Tue, 9 May 2000 05:22:38 -0400
Microsoft was also heavily involved in the W3C's DOM (Document Object
Model).
SOAP is the final piece of the puzzle.
Basically the purpose is to get beyond the browser-as-mainframe-terminal
that Netscape created as part of the Unix server world mentality.
Along with other technologies like ADO, etc., the web will be become a data
store for pulling into smart documents that call components (and their
infrastructure) in desktop apps.
When Netscape had a monopoly with its browser, Microsoft feared that
Netscape would build an "OS on an OS" based on HTTP capacities as a RPC
(Remote Procedure Call) technology.
However, Netscape was not a company with much real talent. It had MarcA who
had the vision, it is true, to make the browser a terminal with a GUI. MarcA
has probably the programming talents of an average VisualBasic programmer.
He seems to have shot his wad on one idea, an innovation to be sure, but not
a great invention.
A University of Ilinois employee at NCSA did most of the programming for the
Mosaic browser based on existing browsers. In particular, he did innovate by
adding graphical elements to the terminal display.
Netscape chose to go with the Java hype. But applets were able to do very
little as poorly implemented distributed objects without infrastructure to
provide needed functionality. Components in themselves are not much. They
depend on their infrastructure to be useful.
An example is middle tier business logic components. Without being able to
invoke the Transaction Processing infrastructure to handle everything from
load balancing to ACID algorithms, these components have extremely limited
usefulness. With infrastructure, they provide low cost development and
become part of powerful componentized TP monitors, sometimes called OTMs or
Object Transaction Monitors.
Microsoft had the first OTM on the market and none of the competing
component models has offered a SINGLE submission to the TPC-C body.
Netscape paid dealy for failing to compete on the desktop. It went with the
ABM alliance with its Network Computer and so on. It decided to sell server
products, yet chose the wrong products, going up against Apache and IIS in
web servers and IBM/Lotus Notes and Microsoft Exchange in groupware. Tough
competition.
In the meantime, SAP alone rose to one of the top five software companies in
the app server market. It did this with its own inhouse component system.
In many respects, Netscape was the victim of the Java hype. Who knows, with
XML-RPC, etc., Netscape might yet get out from under the Mighty Midget
(Scott McNealy) and develop technologies that are actually competitive for
desktop developers.
Of course, Sun bought Netscape to ensure it would never have much of a
future except as part of the Java "ambiance" to help Sun sell its overpriced
servers.
The Network Computer has been replaced by Application Service Providers as
the panacea of the moment. This won't survive the first killer app based on
XML-RPC.
Once Linux and Windows 2000 take the excess value out of these overpriced
servers, then perhaps Netscape can get real and compete with a distributed
object technology of some merit.
Right now Sun seems only confident enough in itself to follow Microsoft: ASP
with JSP, ODBC with JDBC, MTS with EJB and COM with JavaBeans. And the
cruelest cut: Microsoft's not that hidden role in DOM, XML and SOAP where
Sun has been limited to some initiating role in XML, I believe.
Once the brightest of technologies, Java has become somewhat of an albatross
around Sun's neck in developing a competitive component system, even as Java
finds some actual success with servlets.
Java is decidedly not the "programming language of the internet" as Sun
asserts.
It's getting harder for Sun to make those claims that Microsoft never
innovates. EJB is such a copy of MTS that Sun's stateless session beans work
on an earlier generation of MTS from a couple of years ago.
2 + 2
Erik Funkenbusch wrote in message ...
>While Microsoft most certainly cannot claim to have "invented" XML, they
>were certainly key in it's development. In fact one of the editors of the
>XML specificaiton is Jean Paoli (Microsoft). Microsoft was supporting a
>form of XML back in 1996 when it was first proposed as a proper subset of
>SGML.
>
>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>
>>
>> --
>> 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Faux_Pseudo)
Subject: Re: Penguins
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 09 May 2000 09:29:57 GMT
--(Once apon a time, in comp.unix.shell,)--
--(Cyrille Lefevre said it like only they can.)--
$[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Faux_Pseudo) writes:
$
$your email adress is wrong.
my reply to is set to the right addy
$
$> here is one that some one did for me and if you want i have a screen
$> saver that i wrote for it
$
$this as nothing to be here. fu2 comp.os.linux.advocacy
$
$> $ $ $ $ $--------------EF205C623D1E8372A08A4ED1 $Content-Type:
$> text/html; charset=us-ascii $Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit $
$> $<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
$
$and your post is in html, please correct your news browser.
i have no idea what you are talking about
my post is not in html
i am using slrn and that cant even post in html
--
._______. ._______.
| <> <> | while(sig_sucks != 0) | <> <> |
\-|o|-/ printf("Clever sig coming soon."); \-|o|-/
/___\ /___\
(MMM) UIN=66618055 (MMM)
------------------------------
From: nr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: mail all users
Date: 9 May 2000 09:04:08 GMT
Jason Kayarian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Hello,
: I'm running RH 5.2 and would like to send an e-mail message to every user on
: the system without having to do each one individually. Any ideas? Is there a
: command on the system for this or do I have to do it with a script. Would
: anyone please mail me directly at my address, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
for user in `cat /etc/passwd | cut -d: -f1`
do
cat message.txt | mailx -s "Hi there" $user
done
Easy, is'nt it?
- nr
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Poltorak)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: 9 May 2000 09:37:20 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Poltorak)
In <VsHR4.216$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>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.
>>
>> 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.
>
>http://www.ddj.com/articles/1993/9309/9309d/9309d.htm
Others, more familiar with DR-DOS, have recounted first hand experience of
this code to sabotage DR-DOS, still existing in release versions.
I have no evidence to suggest they are lying.
>"The message first appeared in build 61, a late-stage beta, and seemed to
>disappear in the final retail release of Windows 3.1. "
If I accept that this code was removed from the final release,
can you give me any justification for it being there in the first
place?
Was this some sort of Microsoft *innovation* ?
I keep hearing about these marvellous innovations which Microsoft
make, but I am, in all honesty, completely baffled as to what is
being alluded to...
Did Microsoft invent computers?
Did Microsoft invent operating systems?
Did Microsoft invent the GUI?
Did Microsoft invent word processors?
Did Microsoft invent spreadsheets?
Did Microsoft invent the electronic encyclopoedia?
Did Microsoft invent browsers?
Did Microsoft invent the Internet?
The answer is no to all of the above, yet a great many computer users
think at least one of these is true. Is it because Bill Gates keeps trying
to brainwash people with his 'We build innovative products' line that
people need to imagine what he means? I simply don't see any substance
to his assertion.
However I'd like to hear what innovative technology a Microsoft proponent
thinks that Microsoft have introduced to the world.
Don't all shout at once.
--
John
------------------------------
From: "Boris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Built in Virus Scanners!
Date: Tue, 9 May 2000 02:42:00 -0700
I've been a WIN API programmer since windows came out and
I just want to say I have to reboot my NT workstation
every 2 days and my server has to be re-booted EVERYDAY!
[Boris] Your news program settings are screwed up.
How come I don't have to re-boot my NT systems for weeks (even months). I think that
computers are afraid of your brain Charlie...lol. There are individuals who break
everything they touch (you one of them?)...lol.
Boris
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
