Linux-Advocacy Digest #428, Volume #26 Tue, 9 May 00 21:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: computer viruses on LINUX (Nic)
Re: Microsoft invents XML! (Marty)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (tinman)
Re: What have you done? ("John Hill")
Re: Microsoft invents XML! ("David T. Johnson")
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Let's POLL! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: news: Oracle $199 web device, runs on linux, not windows ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: computer viruses on LINUX (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software ("Erik Funkenbusch")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Nic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: computer viruses on LINUX
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 12:14:54 +1200
abraxas wrote:
>
> The Ghost In The Machine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In comp.os.linux.advocacy, abraxas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote on 8 May 2000 17:49:39 GMT <8f6unj$2n2r$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >>JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>> On 8 May 2000 07:59:01 -0700, david parsons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >>>>JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> GNOME already barks at you for running as root.
> >>>>
> >>>> Oh, so Gnome is nannyware? Good, that's another reason to keep it
> >>>> off my systems.
> >>
> >>> ...only barks if you're DUMB enough to run a desktop as root.
> >>
> >>Ahh...the psychology of a nannyware advocate...
> >>
> >>There are actually a few reasons to run X as root, briefly.
>
> > Eh?
>
> > What's wrong with
>
> > $ xhost +localhost
>
> If its a multiuser system and not just a personal workstation, this can
> lead to trouble.
Yep, can do - hence I use this instead:
> > $ su -
> > Enter password: .....
> > # export DISPLAY=localhost:0
> > # x-configuration-thingy
$ su -
# xauth merge ~myuser/.Xauthority
# export DISPLAY=:0.0
# xthingy
To a degree, I don't mind programs _warning_ me that they shouldn't run
as root, but I don't like them _stopping_ me from doing so. As you said,
there are occasions where it is useful.
Regards,
Nic.
--
J. Random Coder < sky at wibble dot net >
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft invents XML!
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 00:14:33 GMT
"David T. Johnson" wrote:
>
> Marty wrote:
> >
> > rj friedman wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, 8 May 2000 19:40:46 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (billy
> > > ball) wrote:
> > >
> > > ÿ>Hopefully you're rolling your eyes at David Ignatius, the writer of that
> > > ÿ>piece ?
> > >
> > > ÿignatius is a shill for M$, and the Washington Post *repeatedly* runs
> > > ÿpro-Microsoft articles... i've emailed the ombudsman and received *no*
> > > ÿresponses...
> > >
> > > One thing to keep in mind is that MS has a whole series of
> > > paid writers who write "news" articles and get them
> > > published as "freelancers" - hiding the fact that the
> > > "reporter" is literally bought and paid for by MS.
> >
> > Any particular examples or evidence, or are you just talking out of your ass
> > as usual?
>
> Here's a link to one report of Microsoft's phony "astroturf" campaign in
> 4/98.
>
> http://www.utoledo.edu/~pfritz/_news/NEWS-442.HTM
Thank you. Now I'm just left wondering if RJ could have come up with that.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (tinman)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Tue, 09 May 2000 20:17:10 -0400
In article
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
WickedDyno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
>
> I think we made the fatal error of using Windows PCs and Macintoshes.
> OS/2 PCs are the only things that could save us, right Bob? Not to
> mention kicking out all those E-Ville homosexuals and L*b*r*l D*m*cr*ts.
>
I just want to know what country club he belongs to, sounds like a great
chance for a really good road trip......
--
______
tinman
------------------------------
From: "John Hill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What have you done?
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 01:27:36 +0100
Chad Myers wrote in message <8f9hgn$g9t$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>Is there a reason why you must continue your circle jerk of
>moronic babbling in COMNA? Shouldn't you contain this FUD
>and idiocy to COLA where it belongs? Thanks.
>
>-Chad
>
>P.S.- we use NT/Exchange and didn't have one problem.
What do you use it for ? Seems like a waste of hardware. Doubt
your problems ever come in ones....
>
>"Seán Ó Donnchadha" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Using Micro$oft Shitware is
>> >like prison gang rape, and the winvocates are analogous to people
>> >who enjoy being subjected to such activities.
>> >
>>
>> Maybe it's simpler than that. Maybe they just don't enjoy being
>> associated with assholes like you. I believe that systems like the
>> Amiga and OS/2 would have done much better had their advocates not
>> gone around calling everyone else in the world idiots, sheep, etc.
>>
>> As an advocate, you want more people to use your favorite platform;
>> that way it'll get more support and you'll be happier. This is
>> undoubtedly what you want; it is why you're here. The only question is
>> how you choose to go about advocating your platform. History has shown
>> time and time again that smugness, insults, and disgusting analogies
>> like the above are exactly the wrong thing to do; rather than
>> influencing people to join you, they have exactly the opposite effect.
>
>
------------------------------
From: "David T. Johnson" <[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, 09 May 2000 17:23:13 -0400
Marty wrote:
>
> "David T. Johnson" wrote:
> >
> > Marty wrote:
> > >
> > > rj friedman wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, 8 May 2000 19:40:46 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (billy
> > > > ball) wrote:
> > > >
> > > > ÿ>Hopefully you're rolling your eyes at David Ignatius, the writer of that
> > > > ÿ>piece ?
> > > >
> > > > ÿignatius is a shill for M$, and the Washington Post *repeatedly* runs
> > > > ÿpro-Microsoft articles... i've emailed the ombudsman and received *no*
> > > > ÿresponses...
> > > >
> > > > One thing to keep in mind is that MS has a whole series of
> > > > paid writers who write "news" articles and get them
> > > > published as "freelancers" - hiding the fact that the
> > > > "reporter" is literally bought and paid for by MS.
> > >
> > > Any particular examples or evidence, or are you just talking out of your ass
> > > as usual?
> >
> > Here's a link to one report of Microsoft's phony "astroturf" campaign in
> > 4/98.
> >
> > http://www.utoledo.edu/~pfritz/_news/NEWS-442.HTM
>
> Thank you. Now I'm just left wondering if RJ could have come up with that.
Whistler's Mother could have come up with that. It was reported in
about 10 zillion publications only 2 years ago.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: Tue, 9 May 2000 19:31:04 -0500
Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8f7vc1$7ca$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <8f7l5f$3t6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> Seem's that here you are saying that it's not the email application's
> >fault.
> >
> >That's the point, it's not. It's the *user's* fault.
>
> But it is a mistake the user would likely not have made if the
> mailer (a) made a clear distinction between programs it is
> starting that only display attachments as data and those that
> give control to the attachment contents, and (b) provided
> a way for the user to see the script before executing it.
What good would looking at the script be to 99% of the users out there? It
would just be giberish to them.
How is the OS to know which documents launch apps that simply display data
and which ones do something with it? (for instance, zip archives don't just
display data, they can create new files).
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: Tue, 9 May 2000 19:35:01 -0500
mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > 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.
How exactly does the email client know that .jpg or .mp3 is what it claims
to be? You could send a virus with a .jpg extension and then have a
different trojan rename the file types to launch the virus when the jpg file
is opened. Suddenly, a jpg is no longer safe.
> 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> "
How does the email program know that it's from an unknown source?
> 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>
And people bitch and moan that Windows already displays too many warning
messages.
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Let's POLL!
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 00:28:30 GMT
"Joseph T. Adams" wrote:
>
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> : 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
> : OUTLOOK EXPRESS be disciplined?
>
> Mildly, yes. They should be made aware that their caused significant
> damage to the company. They should be instructed not to do this sort
> of thing again.
>
> : Why do you figure that corporations establish policies
> : 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.,
>
> Along with the power an employee is given comes the responsibility to
> use that power in a wise manner - in general, meaning in (or at least
> not contrary to) the interests of the company granting such power.
>
> : Is it intelligent for a company to have a policy, where by,
> : it is forbidden to click on any E-mail attachments?
>
> I would far prefer a technological solution, whereby macro virii are
> disabled by company policy, external documents are scanned for virii
> prior to being allowed onto the network, and internal documents are
> allowed to be exchanged only in nonproprietary formats (e.g., HTML,
> RTF, etc.) Preferably, platforms and office packages that are prone
> to macro virii should not be used in a business setting, but, if they
> are, they should be carefully controlled to ensure they are not used
> as a vehicle for virii or other breaches of confidentiality or
> security.
>
> As an interim solution, until proprietary shitware can be phased out
> completely, yes, employees should be instructed not to open
> attachments of any kind from within Outlook or similar programs.
>
> : Is it intelligent for a company to DRILL your systems administrator
> : for allowing the virus to come into your company, even though there is
> : NOTHING he can really do about it!
>
> The firewall admins really aren't responsible; macro virii are not
> among the things firewalls are designed to block.
>
> The network admins may or may not be. Access to network resources
> should generally be granted on an as-needed basis. Networks with
> huge world-writable shares are simply accidents waiting to happen.
> ILOVEYOU wiped out a lot of these.
>
> As for E-mail admins, they bear somewhat greater responsibility. It's
> been known for a very long time that macro virii were a significant
> threat and that most of these virii were vectored primarily by E-mail.
> E-mailing attachments is wasteful. (The appropriate means for sharing
> documents is to post them to a Web, FTP, or file server and then
> e-mail the link.) It is absolutely unnecessary in a corporate
> setting. It should be allowed only under very limited circumstances,
> or not at all.
>
> : 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
> : ? the Microsoft equipped corporations around the world?
>
> If the appropriate elements can be proven (causality, intent,
> awareness of consequences, etc.) then absolutely. No one intelligent
> enough to craft a virus capable of billions of dollars of damage
> should be above the law, no matter what his or her age.
>
> But then neither should Microsoft.
>
> : 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?
>
> Given the nature of U.S. foreign and domestic policy, which is to
> fairly overtly sponsor terrorism both here and abroad, it would be
> foolish not to expect some of our "government's" opponents to stoop to
> similar tactics.
>
> Not sure what this has to do with ILOVEYOU. The destruction of
> billions of dollars of assets is a great crime, and one for which
> those responsible (including but definitely not limited to the virus
> writer, Microsoft, and those who choose to implement insecure
> Microsoft solutions) should be held at least civilly liable. However,
> it does not begin to compare or equate to terrorism.
>
> : 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?
>
> That in my opinion is absolutely foolish.
>
> : Have you heard someone within your organization BLAME the
> : problem we've just experienced with the ILOVEYOU virus on
> : 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?
>
> The Internet is an insecure and in some respects unreliable network.
> This has always been true. It was built on a basis of trust, in an
> age when the Net population much more closely resembled that of a
> small town than that of a large nation.
>
> But all of life is full of risks, and in most other areas of life, we
> learn to manage those risks, and to make informed choices regarding
> them.
>
> We know that automobile travel is dangerous for instance, but in
> geographically large countries such as the U.S. and Canada, it is
> usually the only way to travel between two arbitrary points, so we
> accept the risk, but minimize it to the greatest extent possible. We
> don't hold individuals culpable for genuine accidents that were no
> one's fault, but we *do* hold them culpable for causing accidents out
> of negligence, recklessness, or willful intent, and we penalize
> activities that are unreasonably dangerous even if they don't in fact
> cause an accident in that particular instance.
>
> In the same way, there are unavoidable risks that accompany being
> connected to the net, but there are also significant benefits, so we
> can and should accept the benefits but work to minimize the risk; if
> we don't, we may very well be culpable for our failure to do so.
>
> : 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?
>
> This is largely a cost-benefit issue, and it's skewed by the
> vendor-lock that most Microsoft customers already face. Trillions of
> dollars have been invested in software, hardware, and training that is
> to some extent Microsoft-specific.
>
> I've moved everything that I directly control to Linux or other
> open-source platforms already, but I'm not prepared to suggest that a
> large company such as the one I work for can accomplish the same goal
> instantaneously. There have to be some significant changes in
> corporate culture first. And, to be honest, Linux still needs some
> work before it will be widely accepted on the desktop, although it is
> more than capable of challenging Microsoft anyplace else.
>
> I do strongly advocate making a gradual move toward open-source
> products and nonproprietary protocols wherever possible. Even a
> mostly Microsoft-centric shop can and should be making strategic use
> of cross-platform tools and technologies such as HTML, DHTML, Java,
> CORBA, XML, PostScript, Perl, Python, ANSI-standard SQL, C and C++,
> various GUI toolkits such as Tk, Gtk+ and Qt, and so forth.
>
> One can use VBA to write simple scripts to export Office documents, to
> document and upsize Access databases, and so forth. Converting VB and
> MFC apps is a great deal more work, but by carefully partitioning
> front-end, business logic, and data access layers, one can at least
> minimize the amount of redesign that a rewrite using standard tools
> will require.
>
> This is all very well worth doing, yet hardly anyone is doing it.
> Why? It all takes time and money, and the payoff is not immediate -
> it's long-term, and we just don't live in a culture where immediate
> rewards are often deferred in favor of longer-term benefits.
>
> : How many people have you met who still don't seem to understand that
> : 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?
>
> Even now I find lots of people who are clueless. I don't understand
> it. But then I don't watch TV, and thus don't get exposed to the
> reams of fraudulent pro-MS propaganda that apparently dominates many
> networks' advertising budgets.
>
> : 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
> : are YOUR answers to these questions.
>
> My answer is that we have been adequately warned, and it is time to
> start educating people about the dangers of Microsoft shitware, not
> only in terms of susceptibility to virii and denial of service
> attacks, but also vendor-lock, lost productivity, possible breaches of
> confidentiality, and massive cost overruns.
>
> Joe
I found Joseph Adams comments to be so refreshing.
It is extremely rare to have commentary such as this posted on
a newsgroup in this day and age.
Everything Joseph has written is from my heart.
Computers should not be simple filing cabinets.
They should be an aide to mankind!
Software design should aide mankind, not create additional work
for him.
I sometimes believe that the masses have forgotten or never learned the
true intention behind the personal computer.
And when an E-mail such as ILOVEYOU rolls thru, I see from everyone
who's put their stamp of approval on the Microsoft Operating system
that they HAVE FORGOTTEN or NEVER LEARNED.
The personal computer and the networks they create were NOT created
in an effort to present you with another entity/being to argue with.
Yet as my wife seems to enjoy reminding me, this is what they have
become.
And she's not liking it very much either! Women always hate
competition.
Thank god I switched to Suse some years ago.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: news: Oracle $199 web device, runs on linux, not windows
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 00:29:31 GMT
In article <cNOR4.5483$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
whistler<blahblah>@twcny.rr.com (Paul E. Larson) wrote:
> 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?
They do have a 56K modem.
>
> 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: computer viruses on LINUX
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 00:30:20 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, abraxas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on 9 May 2000 14:19:31 GMT <8f96pj$606$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>The Ghost In The Machine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, abraxas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote on 8 May 2000 17:49:39 GMT <8f6unj$2n2r$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>>JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>> On 8 May 2000 07:59:01 -0700, david parsons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>>>>JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> GNOME already barks at you for running as root.
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh, so Gnome is nannyware? Good, that's another reason to keep it
>>>>> off my systems.
>>>
>>>> ...only barks if you're DUMB enough to run a desktop as root.
>>>
>>>Ahh...the psychology of a nannyware advocate...
>>>
>>>There are actually a few reasons to run X as root, briefly.
>
>> Eh?
>
>> What's wrong with
>
>> $ xhost +localhost
>
>If its a multiuser system and not just a personal workstation, this can
>lead to trouble.
This is true. Another idea: one can also 'ssh -l root localhost' to
oneself. A little strange, perhaps, but it should work reasonably well.
(A warning: I got the message "Accepting localhost without checking"
or something, the first time I try it. A little paranoia, I guess... :-) )
Testing it on my local X server here with linuxconf seems to function
as expected.
>
>> $ su -
>> Enter password: .....
>> # export DISPLAY=localhost:0
>> # x-configuration-thingy
>
>It was nessesary to run actual windowmanagers and such as root in this
>particular situation. Look, I dont like it any more than the next person,
>but again, there are no absolutes.
Except that Microsoft is absolutely one of the worst operating systems :-).
The window manager works as well, with 'ssh -l root localhost'.
HTH
>
>-----yttrx
>
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- "Flexibility? Who needs it?" :-)
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[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: Tue, 9 May 2000 19:48:44 -0500
John Poltorak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >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.
They're not lying. The code does exist in the release version, but it's
inactive. It doesn't display any error messages.
> >"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?
I think Microsoft has a right to warn people about possible
incompatibilities. There were documented memory management bugs in DR-DOS
(these were fixed in a patch later).
More to the point, Microsoft probably decided the message would probably
create more problems than it solved. Software development is like that. A
fix is often put in then removed later.
> Was this some sort of Microsoft *innovation* ?
Don't be stupid.
> 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?
You're confusing the word invention with the word innovation. They are not
the same thing.
> 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.
Most people are introduced to new computer concepts via Microsoft software.
Most people never used the internet on a non-MS OS. Most people have never
heard of a computer with a MS OS (they've probably heard of a Macintosh, but
don't realize it's a different OS). Simply put, if your world is a room,
you'll think that that's all there is.
> However I'd like to hear what innovative technology a Microsoft proponent
> thinks that Microsoft have introduced to the world.
This has been argued many times. Hit deja.com for examples.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[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: Tue, 9 May 2000 19:52:09 -0500
David Steinberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8f9jt2$sml$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Christopher Smith ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> : Yes. Microsoft were beta testing Windows. Since Windows has a
> : tendency to do some rather unholy things to DOS (particularly the memory
> : managers provided with it) notifying users of a DOS which was *known*
> : not to be 100% compatible was simply common sense. It was not
> : Microsoft's responsibility to debug DRDOS.
>
> Unfortunately, it seems Microsoft did not belive this action was so
> innocent...
>
> Care to explain the encryption?
Many people encrypt messages on the Internet. Is evidence of encryption
supposed to be evidence of guilt?
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
