Linux-Advocacy Digest #433, Volume #26 Wed, 10 May 00 01:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Let's POLL! (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Web page rendering Linux (KDE) vs. windows 2000 (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Joseph)
Re: Microsoft: STAY THE FUCK OFF THE NET!!! (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (WickedDyno)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Joseph)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (WickedDyno)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Joseph)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Joseph)
Re: Linux IS THE ULTIMATE VIRUS(IOW LINUX SUXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX)!!!!!!!! ("Ferdinand V.
Mendoza")
Re: Malicious scripts on Unix ("2 + 2")
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Joseph)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Joseph)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Let's POLL!
Date: 9 May 2000 23:08:04 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[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?
>>
>Basically the best way to train the unwashed masses is to threaten them, so
>I would tell them that if they open any document that contains a virus and
>causes damage to the IT systems they are out of the door for groose
>incompetency. Usually this does the thrick ... All the poeple I trained have
>become verry carefull and allways check with the sender if they know them
>before opening attachments and messages from unknown sources get deleted.
>The only thing this requires is fireing one or two employees to make shure
>they know you are serious about your threat.
Heh, I'd venture a bet that plenty of people in management positions
high enough not to worry about threats from technicians participated
in the recent fiasco.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: Web page rendering Linux (KDE) vs. windows 2000
Date: 9 May 2000 23:00:05 -0500
In article <8f77a9$3eu$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>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.
Iptraf is also pretty good at showing current connections among
machines on your segment.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.lang.basic
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 00:13:11 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Bob May from alt.destroy.microsoft; Tue, 9 May 2000 12:34:30 -0700
>The details that I have were that Stac management and other employees
>(software engineers, etc.) had gone to Redmond and talked to Microsoft
>(a.k.a. microcrud) and discussed a technology transfer. There were
>several of these trips and there was only one trip after the source
>code had been shown to the microcrud people. Considering that I was
>going down the street to Stac, my info was from inside sources. If
>Microsoft had just coded something from having seen the Stac software
>run, they would have been in the clear. Stac won the lawsuit because
>they could prove to the court that Microsoft had taken thier code and
>copied it's design. PhotoStacker (our addon to the Stac lineup of
>software in developement) was put on hold when Microsoft started thier
>fun so the company that I worked for also lost money because of
>Microsoft's theft.
Thanks for that information.
>As far as I am concerned, Microsoft's policies are predatory because I
>have been on the losing end of the process and have seen the whole
>thing in review. They will get your source if possible and copy it or
>will reverse engineer your code (remember that they wrote the compiler
>that you are writing the stuff on so they have the best of the reverse
>compilers available) to thier desire.
>As far as I am concerned, Microsoft should be divided into a lot more
>than 2 companies.
As strange as it may sound, the intent is to ensure that the decision is
enforceable by minimizing its impact on Microsoft (outside of forcing them to
abandon the monopoly practices they have been terrorizing the industry with).
Breaking them into two companies is considered the minimum necessary. But it
is also considered the maximum necessary. That's where I think it gets
strange.
The "problem of Microsoft" isn't any more innovative than Microsoft itself.
The vaporish nature of MS's software product (especially the essential and
"extensible", yet difficult to understand nature of an operating system)
certainly lends itself well to these types of abuses. Bill may believe he
"made the PC what it is today" as much as he believes that per-processor
licensing isn't unethical, or as much as Al Gore believes he invented the
Internet. The point is that it is a fundamental principle we *must* rely on
that markets take care of themselves, if possible.
Monopolies happen for a number of *practical*, not economic, reasons. Far
more valuable resources might be controlled by a small company that nobody's
ever heard of, but the fact remains that any amount of anti-competitive
conduct *destroys* the market in a way which provides benefit to the vendor,
and directly harms the customer. It is this practical and real-world burden
which makes monopolies intolerable. Were that not the case, our laws would
agree entirely with the Lockean Objectivists in demanding that a company be at
liberty to increase their profits "by any means".
It does, ultimately, come down to an ethical, not an economic, issue. Markets
exist to serve people, not the other way around. The philosophy is not
typically examined very often, but if the individual's rights are pre-eminent
over society's demands, then the customer's right to a free and open market
would *always* counter-balance any "right" to a market, intellectual property,
or even a license to do business which a legal abstraction such as a "company"
or a "corporation" might lay claim to.
But the market itself doesn't care at all about ethics, or even legality, if
we were to anthropomorphize the amoral nature of commerce to put it that way.
But that works for us once we mitigate the monopoly powers, just as much as it
has been working against us while the monopoly runs rampant. Simply breaking
MS into two, with appropriate controls and behavioral restrictions, will be
enough to let market forces overcome any grip that either piece would have (or
even quite possibly both grips). Thus the theory goes, and I think that the
natural forces underlying capitalism and free market economics are more than
solid enough in principle to effect this change.
It might not be immediate; it might not even be obvious. For all we could
guess, we'll start calling *all* desktop OSes, Linux, Mac, and all others
unmentioned, "Windows". The app developers won't bother porting their apps;
they'll just re-implement the sane parts (?) of the Win32 API. Whether or not
Microsoft wants to go along, it can be done. Once that linch-pin pre-load
exclusionary hanky panky is disabled. The OEMs, the app developers, the OS
developers. The PC will be an *open market*. Newly reminded that it isn't
necessarily anything special because its the PC market, it isn't immune to
unethical and predatory business practices by dint of a "community of
developers". More knowledgable than its ever been, more skeptical than it has
ever been, and more free than it has ever been.
Suddenly, I'm an optimist again. But just remember; your ability to forjudge
the fate of Microsoft and the industry under different scenarios might be
worthwhile to compare to your awareness of the existence and damage of the
monopoly as it was growing.
Did you shout out loud that Microsoft's per-processor licensing agreements
were predatory, and in no way related to "volume discount schedules" other
than a similar appearance (if you don't know what to look for). Did you think
you had reason to believe that Microsoft was being extremely, even criminally,
anti-competitive when they toyed with other developer's ability to write both
OS/2 and Windows applications? Did you consider Windows 3.1 a classical case
of bundling, setting an anti-consumer precedent for the industry that might
take decades to overcome. You ever see a "Windows may not run on DR-DOS"
scare tactic?
Most people didn't notice or understand these issues. Few recognized them as
"anti-competitive", and not very many at all (other than your obvious flakes)
considered them a legal issue. This was "the information age", after all, and
you gotta run hard to keep up and fight dirty to get ahead, and other
corporate gobbledy-gook. NOBODY could present a "barrier to trade" in this
industry; ANYBODY can write any software they want, after all. Forgetting
entirely that in 1976 we changed the rules, and software was now intellectual
property, and when it comes to barriers to entry and legal protections, IP
takes the cake. Because physical transfer is rarely at issue, it is very
difficult and demanding to present a case. This makes intimidation through
threat a much more feasible mechanism for controlling competition.
Because the one piece of software EVERYBODY needs to have access to is the one
that Microsoft won't allow them to have: whatever functionality Microsoft
isn't willing to provide, and would require reverse engineering Windows or
access to source code. Both are verboten by *licensing*, I'll remind you, not
by copyright. The only thing that copyright has to do with licensing is a) it
makes licensing necessary, and b) it says "this software is protected by
copyright".
AND SO, IN SUMMARY (sorry, guys. It's been a heck of a week; I always get
long-winded when I get tired.)
More than one Microsoft is necessary in order to have *any* reasonable
expectation that competition will be possible. Two is sufficient for
competition to thrive, as it will re-inforce the removal of the pre-load
monopoly. More than that does not actually provide any greater likelihood
that competition will be successful in restoring an open market, and could
possibly even prevent it, by providing so many "choices" within the
Microsoft's that even without collusion, they would form a natural trust,
inherently creating a barrier to entry which might even be stronger than
today's.
--
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! ======
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 09 May 2000 21:16:22 -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:
>
> Salvador Peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Also, has ICMP.DLL been documented yet?
>
> INFO: Implementing Internet Pings Using Icmp.dll
> ID: Q170591
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
> The information in this article applies to:
> Microsoft Win32 Software Development Kit (SDK)
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
> SUMMARY
> Icmp.dll provides functionality that allows developers to write Internet
> ping applications on Windows systems without Winsock 2 support. The .h and
> .lib files needed in order to use Icmp.dll were provided with previous
> versions of Win 32 SDK in the MSTOOLS\ICMP directory. The current Platform
> SDK release includes only the icmp.lib file. A Readme.txt (copied below) and
> the .h files from previous versions of the Win 32 SDK were, and still are,
> the only documentation available.
>
> > How many years has that one been out there?
>
> > Is the API, ObOpenObjectByPointer() documented by MS?
>
> That's an internal file system API. It's not meant for use outside of the
> OS. Occasionally there are programs that need to use this API, and it's
> available from MS via non-disclosure. Even so, there are ways to get the
> information that the API provides without using undocumented calls.
>
> > Office developers have been taking advantage of undocumented API's for
> > years.
>
> They did in the early years. This was proven by Andrew Schulman. But
> Schulman also proved that the API's used were not advantagous to MS, since
> the information was available in other ways.
That is a lie. The one example that I remember best was the API EXCEL
used to allocate RAM which was much faster and more efficient than the
public API WINGZ was forced to use. He made it clear that the API gave
MS an distinct advantage.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.fan.bill-gates
Subject: Re: Microsoft: STAY THE FUCK OFF THE NET!!!
Date: 9 May 2000 23:19:41 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Roger <roger@.> wrote:
>> ...it doesn't even require open software. It just requires sane
>> system design. Microsoft could either decide not to just run any
>> random bit of code some random poorly coded app (their own) might
>> tell it to or to put some sort of default sandbox enviroment into
>> their script decoders.
>
>Well, since the situation under question does not involve the running
>of any random bit of code, but instead an active decision on the part
>of the user to run code instead of saving it as is the default, your
>point would be ... ?
The point is that the decision was ill-informed because the mailer
does not distinguish between viewing content and executing it.
How would it have been better to use the default 'save' and
then click on it later?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: WickedDyno <[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: Wed, 10 May 2000 00:24:36 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>WickedDyno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> In article <UgYR4.177$v3.2852@uchinews>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> (david raoul derbes) wrote:
>> <s>
>> >For a decade or more we've heard about this Chinese wall between
>> >apps and OS development, right?
>>
>> Eh? I haven't encountered this metaphor before. Vas ist los?
>
>From Gleick's excellent 1995 article:
>http://www.around.com/microsoft.html
>
>
>=====
>The flow of inside information will remain a critical issue for the
>antitrust investigators. In the 1980's, Microsoft executives often spoke
>of a "Chinese wall" between the systems group, responsible for DOS and
>Windows, and the applications group, responsible for the programs that
>ran in those operating environments. Ballmer himself once said there was
>"a very clean separation" -- "It's like the separation of church and
>state." Competitors were dubious, knowing that all neurons at Microsoft
>led to Bill Gates; these days Microsoft executives take a different
>tack. They deny that the concept of a Chinese wall ever existed. They
>admit that their own developers sometimes get an edge in knowing how to
>take advantage of new Windows features before the knowledge spreads to
>competitors, but they insist that the knowledge does spread sooner or
>later‹because it is in their interest to make sure that everyone writes
>for Windows‹and they say that's as level as the playing field needs to
>be.
OK... but why a "Chinese" wall?
--
| Andrew Glasgow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> |
| SCSI is *NOT* magic. There are *fundamental technical |
| reasons* why it is necessary to sacrifice a young goat |
| to your SCSI chain now and then. -- John Woods |
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 09 May 2000 21:26:40 -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:
>
> Salvador Peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > >
> > > > Actually, it is true that they insert spurious messages into code and
> > > > write code that degrades the performance of their competitors.
> DR-DOS,
> > > > which was dealt with in the Federal lawsuit is one example.
> > >
> > > Did not exist in a retail product.
> >
> > ... because they had already buried the company with FUD before Win3.x
> > went on sale.
>
> Really? I didn't read any reports from Microsoft claiming any FUD against
> DR-DOS before Win 3.x went on sale.
Neither does my two year old nephew.
The shipping product contained the message but it was disabled with a
switch that was added to the GA product. The claims of MS FUD you deny
(or dance around with word games) withstood a challenege by MS in court
- Their challenege failed being there was sufficient evidence to show
the charges had merit.
------------------------------
From: WickedDyno <[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: Wed, 10 May 2000 00:25:25 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>WickedDyno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>> 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.
>
>
>We have an OS/2 PC! I've only seen it turned on once in my three years
>here. I turned it on once to make sure the monitor still worked.
Salvation is at hand, my fellow Cornellians! :)
--
| Andrew Glasgow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> |
| SCSI is *NOT* magic. There are *fundamental technical |
| reasons* why it is necessary to sacrifice a young goat |
| to your SCSI chain now and then. -- John Woods |
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 09 May 2000 21:31:35 -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:
>
> 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.
MS wasn't asked to debug DR-DOS.
> > 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?
Nor more than irrelevant comments explain actions deemed to be
uncompetitive. Maybe you should also rock back and forth.
Encryption is a sign that the communication is not indended to be
understood.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 09 May 2000 21:36:06 -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
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> John Poltorak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > 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?
The code was in the final product but switched off.
> 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).
MS does NOT have a right to warn people of possible incompatibilites.
But we know more. MS documents show the intention of the code was to
disparage DR-DOS. Slam dunk.
> 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.
No. It solved no technical problem. Evidence showed the intention was
to disparage DR-DOS.
> > Was this some sort of Microsoft *innovation* ?
>
> Don't be stupid.
------------------------------
From: "Ferdinand V. Mendoza" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux IS THE ULTIMATE VIRUS(IOW LINUX SUXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX)!!!!!!!!
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 08:39:31 +0400
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.
>
>
In itself, the antivirus, the antitrojan, the antiworm ... want more?
> 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.
>
>
Goodness! You must be the dumbest person on earth. You just revealed
yourself.
> Is this what you call a next generation OS?
>
>
Dumb.
> What generation is that? The year 2025?
More dumb.
>
>
> Shitty looking fonts under X windows,
> Netscape?
> Netscape sucks under Windows also. NOBODY uses Netscape.
>
>
Really dumb.
> Security?
> Every fucking port is WIDE OPEN WITH A DEFAULT MANDRAKE INSTALL...GOOD
> SHOW!!!!!
>
>
Why you have to install the default when you can do paranoid?Try it and
see if you can even ping your localhost. Dumb.
> 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.
>
>
You said you can't get this piece of junk and now you are sayingabout
setting up a firewall. Charlatan!
> 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.
>
> Tasks that are soooooo easy under Windows are a nightmare under Linux.
> Networking for example....
>
> A couple of clicks and it works under Windows.
A perfect solution for dumb people like you.
> 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.
No. WINBLOWS SUX! Period.
>
>
> It really does suck the big Onion.....
> PROCULOUS
Rhymes nicely with WINBLOWS.
------------------------------
From: "2 + 2" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,local.unix.general
Subject: Re: Malicious scripts on Unix
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 00:37:42 -0400
ccghst wrote in message ...
>
>Brian Fristensky wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>>Just for the record, I tried sending myself
>>a C-shell script as an attachment. The attachment
>>had no file extension, such as .csh, to
>>identify the type of file.
>
><snip>
>
>>These mailers are therefore a little bit
>>more secure about executable attachments,
>>in the sense that you have to do a bit
>>of thinking before you execute.
>>Nonetheless, Unix mailers are still susceptible
>>to malicious scripts. Perhaps the
>>people who write mailers on ALL systems
>>should rethink whether it is really
>>a good idea to allow direct execution.
>
>
>It's a good point. If the functionality is desirable to
>some people, it should at least be -disabled- by
>default, and require user intervention to activate
>the feature.
It's a very old, repeated issue. If you don't use scripting, then turn it
off.
It's been around the block many times before.
If next month, the issue came back up, we would be seeing the same old, same
old posts about turning off scripting if you don't use it.
The same posters will be expressing astonishment that people haven't been
warned about the dangers of script-based viruses.
Then they will show one and all their tech astuteness, and call for turning
off scripting if you don't use it.
Then the current issue will die down.
A few months later, the same fools will run an attachment, a scripting virus
will do something to their computer.
Out will come the tech experts. They will cry in unison: turn off scripting
if you don't use it.
A few others will chime in, as a result of account that people have lost
their data.
They will cry out with their high tech advice: always back up your data.
Then several months will past, even a year.
Somebody will run an attachment, data will be lost. No backups in sight.
And guess what?
Yes, the same sanctimously voices will advise people to back up their data,
etc.
If Microsoft is involved, of course, the postings by some will carry a
special earnestness, with much additional half-baked material.
Basically, the upshot of these posts is that the world would be safer with
computers in the hands of the IT dept.
If posters make their money this way, of course, the spin will be put out
about how important security it, and how dumb Microsoft is for supplying
user functionality.
Then some real work will occur.
Out of nowhere, a new world-wide program will emerge that instantly catches
these viruses--like the "hot line" in the cold war.
The first incoming virus will be tracked in real time, 24/7 centers will
diagnose it in real time, within minutes, a worldwide network of mail server
administrators will be notified.
Filters and other protections, normally carrying too high an administrative
burder, will be auto switched on, and the virus blocked without great
dissemination.
The complaining posters will be sitting around ranting in their usual way,
while all of this is auto enacted.
Two hours later, they will notice that their servers have kicked into a
higher state of alert, while they were talking about how lame users are.
The boss will walk up, "good work."
The poster will kind of sheepishly grin (these ranters are not good
candidates for truth tellers).
Later the poster will be at work on the NG, talking about how users should
turn off their scripts or some such.
2 + 2
>
>Personally, I can't see any real value in direct
>execution (but then, I don't send cute little
>programs to other people, either ;> ).
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 09 May 2000 21:39:53 -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:
>
> I think the concept of a chinese wall is pretty ludicrous these days
> anyways.
No. The concept is so reasonable it was proposed by the DOJ.
> Don't you think that developers who once worked for the OS
> division might eventually work for Applications? People move around a lot.
> Lots of people that work at MS once worked for other companies and vice
> versa.
Irrelevant. The chinese wall applies to the management of the company,
not the trivial fact people are not static.
> It's getting to the point that cross-pollonization is getting pretty hard to
> stop.
Then breaking MS into two would have minor effect. The two companies
can hire between each other and still innovate.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 09 May 2000 21:41:05 -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:
>
> David Steinberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8fae5b$hv1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > This very quickly brings us back to the question you dodged: if the
> > display of this error message and the test that caused it were an
> > innocent, justifiable part of the beta process, why didn't Microsoft want
> > anyone to know about it?
>
> I could really care less. The point of the matter is that no such message
> occured in the retail product.
It did occur in the public BETA of windows3.1 and windows 3.1 is a a
retail product.
The message existed but was switched off in the GA version of
Windows3.1.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
