Linux-Advocacy Digest #438, Volume #26 Wed, 10 May 00 09:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Bob Germer)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Bob Germer)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Bob Germer)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Bob Germer)
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Karel Jansens)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Bob Germer)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Karel Jansens)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: What have you done? (Full Name)
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Bob Germer)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Bob Germer)
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Bob Germer)
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Bob Germer)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 11:44:35 GMT
On 05/10/2000 at 04:31 AM,
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> WickedDyno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:amg39.REMOVE-THIS-
> > OK... but why a "Chinese" wall?
> It's a reference to the great wall of china, which was intended to stop
> the barbarian hordes from getting into china, but also stopped the
> chinese from getting out.
Once again you prove that you cannot tell the difference between a lie and
fact. The Great Wall didn't prevent Chinese from leaving China. It only
went along the northern border. There was no wall on the west, south, or
east. Chinese could always leave until the advent of communism in 1949.
--
==============================================================================================
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 13
MR/2 Ice 2.19 Registration Number 67
As the court closes in on M$, Lemmings are morphing to Ostrats!
=============================================================================================
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 11:50:58 GMT
On 05/10/2000 at 04:14 AM,
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Furthermore, he summarizes by saying "Their use of undocumented
> functions shows that Microsoft applications developers have access to
> information on Windows Internals. But is this really such an unfair
> advantage?" He then goes on to discuss how simple it is to find this
> information and how Microsoft has made no effort to hide the
> information, especially when using microsoft supplied tools like
> CodeView and EXEHDR. His last statement on this says "The point is
> merely that that Microsoft really can't be found to have unfair access
> when anyone with copies of CVW and EXEHDR has essentially the same
> access."
More pure bullshit on behalf of Criminal Bill. The above FUD assumes that
CVW and EXEHDR can find everything the programmer does. Since they are MS
products, that is not a valid assumption.
And any intelligent human being knows it. You are a liar and I've proved
it once again.
--
==============================================================================================
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 13
MR/2 Ice 2.19 Registration Number 67
As the court closes in on M$, Lemmings are morphing to Ostrats!
=============================================================================================
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 11:53:59 GMT
On 05/10/2000 at 01:31 AM,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Steinberg) said in response to Erik
Fuckingliar:
> : Many people encrypt messages on the Internet. Is evidence of encryption
> : supposed to be evidence of guilt?
> What on earth is that supposed to mean? Guilt of what?
> Really, that meaningless analogy is a pretty sad attempt to dodge the
> question at hand.
Erik Fuckingliar is nothing more than a flack for Criminal Bill Gates.
--
==============================================================================================
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 13
MR/2 Ice 2.19 Registration Number 67
As the court closes in on M$, Lemmings are morphing to Ostrats!
=============================================================================================
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 11:56:23 GMT
On 05/10/2000 at 01:16 AM,
"Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Erik has posted such things many times.
Erik Fuckingliar is a worthless pile of corruption. You are his clone.
--
==============================================================================================
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 13
MR/2 Ice 2.19 Registration Number 67
As the court closes in on M$, Lemmings are morphing to Ostrats!
=============================================================================================
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: 10 May 2000 11:45:28 GMT
In article <8f0asi$mfu$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Because unix users are consistently FAR less stupid than windows users.
>
> From what evidence do you draw this conclusion ?
> Hopefully not by looking at the average post in cola.
Of course not. You have to filter out all the cross-posts and obvious
flame-bait. Then, you also need to consider the fact that some people
post a lot more than others. Given the number of fuckwits round here,
the average Unix user has to be considerably smarter than the author
of an average message in cola... :^)
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- I may seem more arrogant, but I think that's just because you didn't
realize how arrogant I was before. :^)
-- Jeffrey Hobbs <[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: 10 May 2000 13:07:06 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Poltorak) wrote:
>
> However I'd like to hear what innovative technology a Microsoft proponent
> thinks that Microsoft have introduced to the world.
>
>
Check out this thread: "How Microsoft inhibits competition &
innovation" (comp.os.linux.misc, but crossposted to others), sit back
and enjoy.
(BTW, I was right before: it was Erik Funkenbusch who has this
interesting attitude with shifting definitions)
Karel Jansens
jansens_at_attglobal_dot_net
========================================================
This operating system/newsreader does not support the
advanced features of VapourSig 1.1.
Please upgrade your operating system/newsreader to the
latest version of RipOffCorp's product.
Have a nice day.
========================================================
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 12:03:38 GMT
On 05/09/2000 at 11:58 PM,
jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens) said:
> Again, my copy of Windows 3.1 was _not_ a beta. It was bought retail (I
> can even show you the bloody invoice!), there is no mention of beta
> status anywhere in the documentation or in the information windows.
> This copy of Windows 3.1 refused to run on DR-DOS 6; there was not some
> well-meant message about possible incompatibilities with a non-tested
> product, IT WOULD NOT RUN!
> The patch-disk replaced a whole bunch of DR-DOS files with "flagged"
> ones (so I was told) that the Windows copy would no longer recognize as
> "hostile".
Absolutely correct. The identical thing happened to me with DR-DOS and
RETAIL Windows 3.1. It WOULD NOT run until I applied those patches.
I also had problems with 3.1 with IBM PC-DOS 3.1 until someone posted a
patch on Fidonet for PC-DOS and/or IBM released a CSD for 3.1. I forget
which was first.
It was this problem with Windows which convinced us to standardize on
OS/2, BTW. We found that every release from MS of DOS broke something in
WordPerfect while IBM's PC Dos didn't or IBM fixed what was broken very
quickly. We were primarily engaged in law office automation in those days
and WordPerfect Authorized dealers.
--
==============================================================================================
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 13
MR/2 Ice 2.19 Registration Number 67
As the court closes in on M$, Lemmings are morphing to Ostrats!
=============================================================================================
------------------------------
From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: 10 May 2000 13:10:31 GMT
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> <jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)> wrote in message
> news:L9BY9tzSDwrQ-pn2-d9UNCCpPQ8ZT@localhost...
> > I have a Windows copy, a DR-DOS copy and a patch disk. What more
> > evidence do you want? Engraved stone tables?
>
> What evidence I want is documentation by objective sources to back up your
> claim that the retail version of Windows 3.1 wouldn't work with DR-DOS.
>
What documentation by objective sources can back up your claim that
the retail version of Windows 3.1 did work with DR-DOS?
> > Here is a list of most of the files the patch disk replaced.
> >
> > DISPLAY SYS 4752 27/03/92 6:00
> ....
>
> > Some of them have to do with memory management, but just about
> > anything is in that list, so your claim about bugs in DR-DOS is to be
> > taken for what it's worth.
>
> Probably fixed other bugs as well.
>
Most likely Windows ones. I had the distinct impression that my copy
of Windows 3.1 was a lot more stable than the one I used at the office
(but that one ran on top of MS DOS 5, obviously).
> > Please also note the copy date of the files, which should assist the
> > case of my copy of Windows 3.1 not being a beta (any betas still
> > around in retail in '92 would have meant serious trouble for
> > Microsoft's sales figures)
>
> Windows 3.1 was released in April of 92 IIRC, your files are dated from
> March. How would it have meant trouble for anything?
>
Really? Shouldn't that be '91?
> > > There is no written evidence which supports this. Can you provide some
> > > links?
> > >
> > How do I provide links to a "so I was told" source? The person who
> > gave me the patch worked at Siemens Belgium at the time; he was
> > heavily involved in both DR-DOS, OS/2 and UNIX; he knows more than I
> > do; I repeat what he told me. Remember that all this happened in the
> > days when there was not yet a "big Bad Microsoft" and Windows was just
> > another program you could run on top of your operating system (these
> > days of course it has become a program you _have_ to run on top of
> > your operating system).
>
> So, you have no proof that what you claim is true then.
Right back at ya.
Karel Jansens
jansens_at_attglobal_dot_net
========================================================
This operating system/newsreader does not support the
advanced features of VapourSig 1.1.
Please upgrade your operating system/newsreader to the
latest version of RipOffCorp's product.
Have a nice day.
========================================================
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[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: Wed, 10 May 2000 07:20:25 -0500
Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:39194ac8$3$obot$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Windows 3.1 was released in April of 92 IIRC, your files are dated from
> > March. How would it have meant trouble for anything?
>
> OK, you damned Microsoft Mole, I have you now. I can prove you are a
> fucking plant working for Bill Criminal Gates.
You seem to have missed the part of my message that says IIRC, which stands
for "If I Recall Correctly".
In any event, I'm sure it was several weeks from the final build of Windows
3.1 till it was released publicly. Which would put at the end of March or
early april.
Oh well, I was wrong. It happens.
> 8514.dr_ 50425 3-10-92 3:10
> So, you lying asshole, Windows 3.1 file dates were ALL March 10, 1992.
Use of IIRC means that I wasn't 100% sure and was letting everyone know.
Get over it.
> Go away and stay there!
I wonder how the weather is in "away" these days?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Full Name)
Subject: Re: What have you done?
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 12:11:26 GMT
On Tue, 9 May 2000 22:52:18 +0200, Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>finding a Windows NT admin that does not say that NT is crap compared to
>Linux... the only thing they miss is functionallity provided by some
>specific applications not existing
I managed 5 Unix boxes (Sun 330, Sparc 2, Silicon Graphics IRIS and 2
IBM RS6000's) for a couple of years back at the beginning of the 90's.
For the last six months I've been responsible for 2 Ultra 10's, a
Sparc 10, an old HP, a Dell Linux box and one Dell NT server. In the
between time I was C++ programmer who, in my spare time, managed two
NT networks.
I can tell you without a shadow of a doubt that the Linux box is a
piece of rubbish. I would get rid of it in a heartbeat. We purchased
it as a cheap alternative to an Alpha box for number crunching.
NT simply murders any of the Unix box's when it comes to file and
print serving. My primary function is as an Oracle DBA. I don't have
the time to spend a month patching a Linux box. I don't have time to
waste configuring Samba for file and print serving when I can get
better and faster performance from NT. I'm afraid I have better
things to do then waste time vi'ing smb.conf, thinking about group
permission's, setting umasks and musing over s bits when I can achieve
more flexible and faster file sharing in two minutes with NT's access
control lists.
Over the last few years the lab I work for has had two major security
breaches. Both involved Unix operating systems. Any standard system
that transmits passwords on the wire as clear text is a joke. Any
standard system that uses machine based security for sharing of
resources is a joke.
You want to secure an NT file/print server? Easy. Delete the TCP/IP
protocol and run a non-routable protocol such as IPX. To achieve the
same level of security with a Unix box you would need to spend a week
wrapping all the TCP ports.
Any of you people done any programming? A novice programmer almost
always starts writing programs which read and write text files. As
their expertise increases they move on to binary files. Unix is a
novice operating system which reads and writes text files.
/etc/passwd is laughable.
Unix's ugo - rwx permissions are simply inadequate for a modern
computing environment.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: 10 May 2000 12:00:23 GMT
In article <8f024r$sit$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Ben Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> With Windows, it's kind of like crying wolf. How many times does
> Windows pop up some idiotic window and it is just ignored? A lot of
> times users don't even pay much attention to the dialog box.
It is just another variation on Klingon Battlecruiser Mode interaction
where you end up in a maze of twisted dialog boxes, all alike. Deal
with one, and another pops up, and get any of the questions wrong and
it it all blows up, taking out seven city blocks and a bus-load of
nuns for good measure. Of all the possible ways of interacting with a
computer, this has got to be one of the worst!
Systems should be secure up until the point when you specifically
request otherwise, and at that should be a positive opt-in, and not
just a "Don't show this dialog again"-type checkbox...
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- I may seem more arrogant, but I think that's just because you didn't
realize how arrogant I was before. :^)
-- Jeffrey Hobbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: 10 May 2000 12:14:56 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "WARNING: web pages, executables, and other attachments may contain
> viruses or scripts that can be harmful to your computer. It is
> important to be certain this file is from a trustworthy source"
Of course, the problem with the above message is that the meaning of
"trustworthy" does not correspond with the user's concept of it. The
interpretation of trustworthiness most appropriate to use within a
computing environment is approximately "outright paranoia." Just
because you'd trust someone with your investments doesn't mean that
you should trust them with your data. My data is *mine* and you're
lucky if you get to even read it, let alone write to it...
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- I may seem more arrogant, but I think that's just because you didn't
realize how arrogant I was before. :^)
-- Jeffrey Hobbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
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: Wed, 10 May 2000 07:25:30 -0500
Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:39194d19$6$obot$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On 05/10/2000 at 04:14 AM,
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > Furthermore, he summarizes by saying "Their use of undocumented
> > functions shows that Microsoft applications developers have access to
> > information on Windows Internals. But is this really such an unfair
> > advantage?" He then goes on to discuss how simple it is to find this
> > information and how Microsoft has made no effort to hide the
> > information, especially when using microsoft supplied tools like
> > CodeView and EXEHDR. His last statement on this says "The point is
> > merely that that Microsoft really can't be found to have unfair access
> > when anyone with copies of CVW and EXEHDR has essentially the same
> > access."
>
> More pure bullshit on behalf of Criminal Bill. The above FUD assumes that
> CVW and EXEHDR can find everything the programmer does. Since they are MS
> products, that is not a valid assumption.
>
> And any intelligent human being knows it. You are a liar and I've proved
> it once again.
How am I a liar by quoting what Andrew Schulman said? Are you saying that I
made up this statement? Anyone with a copy of the book can verify it.
Furthermore, this was countering Josephs statement that Schulman said
otherwise, which he did not.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 12:22:20 GMT
On 05/09/2000 at 11:41 PM,
Peter Ammon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> >
> > Does Microsoft usually encrypt its error messages? Why do you suppose
> > they encrypted this particular one (which, as I understand, was not
> > encrypted in the betas)?
> I believe it was encrypted in both the last beta (which was the first
> place it was found) and in the release.
No, it was not encrypted. The error message which displayed when trying to
load the release version on DR-DOS can be found at offset 028DFD in
setup.exe from the retail disk. It didn't mention DR-DOS by name. It just
said:
Windows does not run with the version of MS DOS you have on your computer.
Windows requires MS DOS 3.1 or later. You must quit Setup and update the
version of MS DOS on your computer before setting up Windows.
--
==============================================================================================
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 13
MR/2 Ice 2.19 Registration Number 67
As the court closes in on M$, Lemmings are morphing to Ostrats!
=============================================================================================
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 12:23:18 GMT
On 05/10/2000 at 01:07 PM,
jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens) said:
> (BTW, I was right before: it was Erik Funkenbusch who has this
> interesting attitude with shifting definitions)
Erik Fuckingliar is a damned liar with Criminal Bill's shit all over his
face.
--
==============================================================================================
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 13
MR/2 Ice 2.19 Registration Number 67
As the court closes in on M$, Lemmings are morphing to Ostrats!
=============================================================================================
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 07:34:55 -0500
mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Here is how you do it:
>
> Add one field in the registry, under classes, for each entry with is
> safe for e-mail. When outlook gets an extension or mime-type, you add 10
> lines of code that looks up this information in the registry, and
> decides whether or not to open the object in the e-mail. Simple.
I guarantee you that someone will figure out a way to exploit this.
> > Microsoft has fixed it. Days ago in fact.
> >
> > http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/virus/vbslvltr.asp
> >
> > The problem is that it takes away a feature that many users like. I see
no
> > way to allow execution of any attachment safely.
>
> Hmmm, so, java is a better environment than vbs? Of course it is,
> because java is designed with the notion that some content (especially
> from the Internet) is not safe to run with full security. Again, if
> Microsoft can not ensure that executable content opened by its e-mail
> clients can be run safely, it should not open it. It is far less
> inconvenient to remove this feature than it is to fix all the problems
> from having it.
Sorry, but A Java attachment will run outside the sandbox as well. As such,
a Java atachment can do just as much damage.
VBScript can run inside a sandbox as well, but will not do so when it's sent
as an attachment, just as a Java program sent as an attachment will not.
> > Simply not possible. The only way to prevent the problem (there will be
> > users that save the attachment and launch it anyways) is to prevent
> > attachments. That's not going to happen.
>
> I submit, if a user saves the object to a file and runs it themselves,
> in a few steps, probably 90% of the previously infected users would not
> have been infected.
I think 90% is an awfully large number. There are a lot of user that will
do exactly as their told, especially if the message comes from their
supervisor, friend or other trusted person.
> > Who said it's hard for me to understand. I am simply saying that just
about
> > every suggested "fix" by anyone on this newsgroup isn't a fix. They all
> > cause other problems or allow the virus to continue in other ways.
>
> Not true. No "fix" I have suggested "opens" a new exploit. Perhaps they
> are not perfect, but this is because MS does not have the security
> infrastructure in Windows to make a safe environment, and vbs while
> being promoted as a way of pushing executable content does not have the
> security features that java has for internet use. The fact the ILOVEYOU
> virus infects systems in almost the exact same way as malissa proves
> that MS is inept, and incapable of "innovating" its way out of a paper
> bag.
One more time. The ILOVEYOU virus was an executed attachment that would
have wreaked equal havok had it been Java or JavaScript or Rexx or Perl.
> A few "simple" "innovations" from MS, after malissa, would have saved
> millions of users the grief of the "ILOVEYOU" virus.
Doubtful.
Microsoft has in fact done exactly as you suggest (funny that you should
"come up" with that solution after I publish a link mentioning how MS fixed
the problem). So, when the next virus comes around that people run, will
you stand by your words that 90% of the users wouldn't have done it?
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 12:25:24 GMT
On 05/10/2000 at 07:25 AM,
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> How am I a liar by quoting what Andrew Schulman said? Are you saying
> that I made up this statement? Anyone with a copy of the book can
> verify it.
You do nothing other than post lies, defend criminals, and spread FUD on
behalf of Microsoft. You are therefore forever known as Erik Fuckingliar
here.
--
==============================================================================================
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 13
MR/2 Ice 2.19 Registration Number 67
As the court closes in on M$, Lemmings are morphing to Ostrats!
=============================================================================================
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 07:37:02 -0500
Donal K. Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8fbhb6$52i$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <nF3S4.350$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Again, you're asking that the email program KNOWS it's a script. It
> > doesn't.
>
> Why not? That info could easily be made to exist in the registry.
If it's so easy, why does unix require the #! syntax to identify scripts?
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 12:29:46 GMT
On 05/09/2000 at 09:41 PM,
Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> The message existed but was switched off in the GA version of
> Windows3.1.
No, it was just changed. I posted the offset from Setup.exe in another
message.
--
==============================================================================================
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 13
MR/2 Ice 2.19 Registration Number 67
As the court closes in on M$, Lemmings are morphing to Ostrats!
=============================================================================================
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
