Linux-Advocacy Digest #452, Volume #26 Thu, 11 May 00 08:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: How to properly process e-mail (Rob S. Wolfram)
Re: win millenium (Martijn Bruns)
Re: Window managers (George Russell)
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (J French)
Re: Here is the solution ("Todd")
Re: Programs for Linux ("Jackie")
Re: Programs for Linux (Friedrich Dominicus)
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! (mlw)
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! (Stefan Ohlsson)
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! (mlw)
Re: simply being open source is no guarantee of security. (Charlie Ebert)
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! (Stefan Ohlsson)
Re: How to properly process e-mail ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: How to properly process e-mail ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (John Poltorak)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Peter Ammon)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Thu, 11 May 2000 02:18:22 -0500
Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > 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 page 37 of Undocumented Windows (Schulman, Maxey, Pietrek):
> >
> > Schulman reveals that Excel uses only the following undocumented API's
(and
> > ordinals).
>
> Which version of Windows?
3.0 and 3.1 of course.
> > He says in many places that he believes that much of this code is old
code
> > from the Windows 1.0 and 2.0 days when the OS was not as complete. For
> > instance, EndMenu, FillWindow, and the various GDI functions are all
> > available from different API's.
>
> You argued against MS. The undocumented APIs were even more critical
> when the OS was not as complete. The competitor had an even greater
> disadvantage.
It wasn't an OS then.
> The API I refer to was relevent in v2.0 when RAM allocation was very
> inefficient and MS EXCEL was newer and was in competition with WINGZ.
I dont recall Wingz ever existing for Windows 2.0. In fact, Wingz was
introduced on the Macintosh on February 14th 1989. Wingz was launched on
the PC platform in October of 1990, some 5 or 6 months after Windows 3.0
shipped.
At least according to this history page:
------------------------------
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: Thu, 11 May 2000 02:20:21 -0500
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:K1tS4.501$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > > Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > 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 page 37 of Undocumented Windows (Schulman, Maxey, Pietrek):
> > >
> > > Schulman reveals that Excel uses only the following undocumented API's
> (and
> > > ordinals).
> >
> > Which version of Windows?
>
> 3.0 and 3.1 of course.
>
> > > He says in many places that he believes that much of this code is old
> code
> > > from the Windows 1.0 and 2.0 days when the OS was not as complete.
For
> > > instance, EndMenu, FillWindow, and the various GDI functions are all
> > > available from different API's.
> >
> > You argued against MS. The undocumented APIs were even more critical
> > when the OS was not as complete. The competitor had an even greater
> > disadvantage.
>
> It wasn't an OS then.
>
> > The API I refer to was relevent in v2.0 when RAM allocation was very
> > inefficient and MS EXCEL was newer and was in competition with WINGZ.
>
> I dont recall Wingz ever existing for Windows 2.0. In fact, Wingz was
> introduced on the Macintosh on February 14th 1989. Wingz was launched on
> the PC platform in October of 1990, some 5 or 6 months after Windows 3.0
> shipped.
>
> At least according to this history page:
Oops. Sent before I pasted.
http://clecoeur.free.fr/1990e.html
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob S. Wolfram)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How to properly process e-mail
Date: 11 May 2000 06:46:35 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jim Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The problem isn't that MS Outlook can execute e-mail content.
Sorry, I disagree. Email attachments should *NOT* be executed by your
MUA, period. If you get executable content via e-mail you should take
the necessary steps to be able to execute it (i.e. save to disk and
spawn it from the shell). There is a major difference between
non-executable data which is delevered via the MUA to the application
(.jpg, .mp3 etc) and executable content. Of course, the line is not
distinct, as Postscript is also executable content, but in general its
mime-type is such that the ps interpreter gets a save enivornment.
All this was known and written down in June 1992 by means of RFC1341,
(now obsoleted by draft-standard RFCs 2045-2049) but it seems Windows
coders rarely ever read RFCs.
Nearly all MUA's available in Windows will execute email-content
directly, possibly after issuing a security warning (remember
Happy99.exe or ExplorerZip.exe?). The only Unix MUA I know that does
this is dtmail. But the latter does demonstrate that it's not an OS
problem, it's an application problem.
>This does make things easier to use, do obviously. One less app to open
>first.
;-)
That's of course one way of looking at it... ;-)
Cheers,
Rob
--
Rob S. Wolfram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PGP 0x07606049 GPG 0xD61A655D
In a small way, [Richard Stallmans] ideas seem to coincide with
Microsoft's ideas, of computing, [...]
-- Stephen S. Edwards II in <83i1m1$phs$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: Martijn Bruns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: win millenium
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 10:17:00 +0200
"Robert L." schreef:
>
> they have not corect the MBR bug, my lilo have been erase.
> BTW, i have 2 rescue disk, i was certain that the mbr gonna
> be erase, so i protect myself ( and Linux ).
>
> oh, i'm beta tester for Win millenium, and i have the french beta 3.
>
> after 6 years, they have not delete the MBR bug, what a great companie !!!!!
> Linux bug are delete in almost 1 day.
> So, which one is better?
>
> PS I have 2 computer, 1 with dual boot WinME/Linux RH5.2, and the other with
> only Linux RH 5.2
> The second one have 8 Meg ram, so it's imposible to even run the install
> program.
What more can you tell us about it? It's good to know about the
competition :-)
(What did you say?) The hardware requirements have gone up even
further?!
Are there a lot of bugs like in Win98SE, or have they improved
upon something else, besides the (unneeded) features?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (George Russell)
Subject: Re: Window managers
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 09:08:28 GMT
On Wed, 10 May 2000 14:05:34 GMT, Alberto Trillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Hi everyone. I've been thinking about KDE and GNOME and at
>how each other window manager is changing its code to make it
>GNOME and KDE hints compatible, and I've decided that I do
Really? I've not seen ctwm dtwm olvwm mwm and many others change - they work
fine already.
>not like that. I have nothing against the fact that desktop window
>managers are a modular part of them, but why traditional window
>managers must fix themselves to be used as desktop window
Bzzt. Need not. Run twm and kde if you want.
>managers. I think that as desktop environments advance, integrating
>window managers will be harder and harder, and then, why can't we
>have two window managers series ? Window managers one and
There is a WM spec evolving, for both WM and Desktop's WM to follow -
no unified spec with all desired features existed before.
>desktop window managers on the other side. Besides, there are a lot
>of window managers out there that overlap funcionality with desktops.
So? Not terribly much - customised applets and a terminal variant.
>Let's face that iceWM or Enlightenment to say two does not need
>anything KDE or GNOME have to offer, and on the other side, using
And vice versa...
>them as desktop window managers overlap a lot of things. Yes to
>free choice, but ... is it really free when KDE and GNOME are
>now the facto standars ?
Since anyone is free to implement the specs, yes. E btw, seems to be a
major player in the spec design and implementation...
George Russell
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (J French)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.lang.basic
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 09:10:06 GMT
On Thu, 11 May 2000 04:12:39 GMT, "Tom Hanlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Stac's technology was neither particularly innovative nor difficult to
>duplicate to begin with, and the company was insane to base its entire
>business on it. I'd probably be inclined to have Bill Gates spanked over the
>issue anyway-- the Stac claim may or may not have had merit, but the
>Microsoft counter-claim was complete vicious gibberish.
>
>--
>Thomas G. Hanlin III, Programmer At Large
>home: http://www.tgh3.com - programming tools & libraries, games and things
>work: http://www.powerbasic.com - DOS & Windows BASIC compilers & tools
Actually I thought that Stac also had a product called Reachout -
something I could not get working ! Timbuktu is very good.
In the past Microsoft were definately a positive influence - the joy
of being able to go to a client with a floppy disk, rather than RS232
kit, not having to parameterize screen and keyboard codes, as one had
to under CP/M - is something I *still* appreciate.
However it was the IBM PC that set the standard - not Microsoft - they
just implemented software on a standard machine.
When it comes to Windows - especiall Win32 - it is hard to understand
how anyone could produce such a tangled monster. For that crime -
regardless of their other misdeeds - I am looking forward to the day
when they are split - not into O/S and Apps - but vertically into two
competing companies - both with all source code.
------------------------------
From: "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Here is the solution
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 17:19:27 +0800
josco wrote in message ...
>On Thu, 11 May 2000, Todd wrote:
>
>>
>> Challenge:
>>
>> Give me just *one* MS undocumented API call, that could not be done with
>> their *free* downloadable SDK?
>
>Give me just *one* reason it even matters.
>
>There are no undocumented APIs - there are undocumented APIs BUT....
>
>Credibility = 0.0
>
>MS rocks - back and forth on a series of critical issues thus it has no
>credibility SO who cares to keep track of the lie of the week. The story
>will change and MS will defeat themselves again and again.
So in other words, you can't provide a secret API call that you couldn't do
with the normal SDK.
Instead, you try to change the topic.
-Todd
>
>http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/00/05/biztech/articles/11soft.html
>
> "The public has reaped substantial benefits from
> Microsoft's development of Windows and other
> software products," the company said. "Many of these
> benefits would not have been possible but for
> Microsoft's unified structure, which enables Microsoft to
> conceive and implement new ideas that span operating
> systems and applications."
>...
> In the recent past, Microsoft's leaders have said there
> there was a "church and state" separation within the
> company between the Windows group and the others
> that develop applications programs.
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Jackie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc,linux.dev.newbie
Subject: Re: Programs for Linux
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 17:11:27 +0800
(1) Oracle in Linux?? Where to get??
(2) I need assembler 'cos I wanna learn hacking and virus writing ^^
- Jackie mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Carsten Pitz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ¼¶¼g©ó¶l¥ó
news:8fbc3r$j57$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> (1) GNU assembler (gas)
> (2) Oracle maybe is a good choice
>
> BTW, I am quite intersted in why you need an assembler.
>
> Carsten
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Friedrich Dominicus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Programs for Linux
Date: 11 May 2000 12:07:04 +0200
"Jackie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> (1) Oracle in Linux?? Where to get??
www.oracle.com?
> (2) I need assembler 'cos I wanna learn hacking and virus writing
^^^^^^^^ good ^^^^^^^^^^^
bad idea
NASM is the answer
Regards
Friedrich
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 07:16:34 -0400
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:8ev58u$gmd$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > You are right MLW, what you've just said is Bullshit. This virus
> > > type could be written to work just as well in UNIX if attachments
> > > can be executed from email, is that not possible with Netscape on
> > > LINUX?
> >
> > Yes, Unix machines can have mail programs that allow attachments
> > to be opened, or executed (FWIW, my Solaris mailtool will
> > open attachments using the apppropriate program if I click
> > on them). However, the environment that this is done in can
> > be controlled, and process permissions can be limited so that
> > they are not allowed to access system files, or wreak other
> > havoc such as the "ILOVEYOU" one did.
>
> Sorry, ILOVEYOU doesn't access system files. It accesses the users address
> list (which will always be visible to a user, or what's the point of having
> one?) and it overwrites graphic and music files belonging to the user. No
> system files at all.
>
Are you saying that modifying the registry does not affect "system"
files?
> > Because Windoze has no concept of security, however, there
> > is really no way to limit what such executables do in the
> > Micro$ux environment.
>
> You can't do that in MacOS, BeOS, OS/2 or any other consumer level OS
> either.
You can in OS/2. Mac, no osX maybe. Linux, yes.
+
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 9x, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
"We've got a blind date with destiny, and it looks like she ordered the
lobster"
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stefan Ohlsson)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Reply-To: Stefan Ohlsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 11 May 2000 13:25:53 +0100
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>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.
>
Indeed, and why should a bank clerk require an ID before a withdrawal from an
account? ID's can be faked. Suddenly, a bank withdrawal is no longer safe.
Why hire security guards when they can be bribed?
Why put locks on doors when they can be forced with a lockpick?
The point is, it's harder to get through. Perhaps some will still come through
but it will be harder and less common.
>>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?
>
NO source is to be considered safe. The love-u virus is a great example of
it, it came from people you know and trust.
>>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.
>
Maybe it just displays them in the wrong place or at the wrong time?
/Stefan
--
[ Stefan Ohlsson ] · http://www.mds.mdh.se/~dal95son/ · [ ICQ# 17519554 ]
Gabe: [burning stolen money] It costs a fortune to heat this place.
/Cliffhanger
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 07:25:32 -0400
Christopher Smith wrote:
>
> "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Christopher Smith wrote:
> > >
> > > "Leslie Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:8faj9d$2c7o$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > In article <DZ1S4.332$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > > Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >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).
> > > >
> > > > It isn't an OS issue - it is a mailer issue because it is the mailer
> > > > starting the program.
> > >
> > > No, it's not. It's the mailer passing the file to shell saying "the
> user
> > > wants to open this, go dow hatever the default action is".
> >
> > OK, then it is an OS issue. Fine, MS needs to fix it. It is a security
> > bug.
>
> The shell running a script is a security bug ? You _have_ to be kidding.
>
> Would you call "/bin/sh ./myscript.sh" running a script a security bug as
> well ?
Well what is it? It is either a security bug in the e-mailer where it
does not have any notion of identifying and protecting the user from
unknown content which it receives, or it is a security bug in the OS
which fails to provide adequate security features for applications like
e-mail. Either way, it is a security bug which MS is directly to blame
and must be responsible enough to fix.
You are just arguing to delay a conclusion, when we assert it is an
e-mail bug, you say, "hey the program passes it to the shell, it isn't
the e-mail." When we say it is an OS bug, you say "The shell running a
script is a security bug ? You _have_ to be kidding." It is a bug in
one or both of these, so argue all you want, but it is a security bug
and must be fixed by the company that created the security hole,
Microsoft.
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 9x, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
"We've got a blind date with destiny, and it looks like she ordered the
lobster"
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: simply being open source is no guarantee of security.
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 11:29:21 GMT
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> "Donal K. Fellows" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8dn2rt$adr$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <8dh73f$v45$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > Truckasaurus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > "Making source code available to costumers"
> >
> > But what do they do with it? Print it out (on a screen printer) and
> > turn it into clothing? :^)
> >
> > (Sure, I'm making fun of a spelling mistake. But it was such a fun
> > one to make that I couldn't help myself...)
>
> However, it is a rather poignant faux-paus. Linux is similar to the
> emporer's clothing =)
>
> You can see everything, but it still leaves you out in the cold =)
>
> <grin>
>
> -Chad
Oh Chad,
Have I told you that using a Microsoft OS at the office is about as
smart as using your butt for a gun holster?
Seems E-mail is something they don't handle well, see...
I wonder is this has occured to you yet?
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stefan Ohlsson)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Reply-To: Stefan Ohlsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 11 May 2000 13:29:31 +0100
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
>The mime type can be wrong as well. If the mime type says it's a gif, and
>the extension says it's a gif, how do you know for sure it's a gif without
>building gif decoding functionality into the email reader?
>
What does it matter if it's not a gif? If it's believed to be a gif it will
be passed to the gif viewer and it will try to decode it. The worst thing that
can happen if it's not a gif is that the viewer crashes.
/Stefan
--
[ Stefan Ohlsson ] · http://www.mds.mdh.se/~dal95son/ · [ ICQ# 17519554 ]
main(w,x,a)char*a;{return 1<w?0x7d==*a||main(w,main(-1,*a,"%s/[a,@"
".o]+^\\ _@|(/)~U\n."),1+a):0<w?main(3,w,"+%a@s////s%a@+s[o@s^^s%o"
"[+@/,s%/s@s./%+sss%/s]/@++}"):x==*a?putchar(12[a]):main(w,x,a+1);}
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How to properly process e-mail
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 11:32:45 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell) writes:
> In article <8fdb70$t4g$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> >> I didn't, which is why I am still asking questions. Is the difference
> >> >> between an image and a script obvious in preview mode or not? That
> >> >> is, can you tell if 'open' is dangereous?
> >> >
> >> >Yes. Different icon, different file extension.
> >>
> >> So how does that tell you what is going to happen?
> >
> >If you "open" something that can execute code, it's very dangerous.
>
> Obviously, and easy to say after the fact. How do you tell the
> first time you see a new type?
A smart person does not "open" something unknowned until having
checked with trusted others about it.
--
Da Katt
[This space for rent]
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How to properly process e-mail
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 11:36:51 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell) writes:
> Is this the 'easy' part of the windows interface? What if you've
> never seen a .vbs before. What should have prepared you to
> expect something different to happen than with the .gifs you
> get all the time?
How about common intelligence? To _not_ open a file you have no
clue about until you get its contents verified, by someone you trust? HOw
about some personal responsability people?
--
Da Katt
[This space for rent]
------------------------------
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: 11 May 2000 11:49:27 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Poltorak)
In <391a43ac$1$obot$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>On 05/10/2000 at 06:20 PM,
> Chris the MS Mole Wenham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
>> Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> > On 05/10/2000 at 09:44 AM,
>> > "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> >
>> >
>> > > Microsoft behave identically to almost every other company. Bitching
>> > > about Microsoft without also bitching about everyone else is hypocrisy,
>> > > plain and simple.
>> >
>> > What a load of pure fiction! Most companies do not get convicted of
>> > breaking the anti-trust laws of the United States. In fact, only a
>> > miniscule percentage does.
>> >
>> > Microsoft is a corrupt, lawbreaking disgrace.
>
>> Smith used the word "behave."
>
>Yes, should have been behaves. But this is not Remedial English 101.
>
>> "Getting convicted" isn't a behavior. It's an event that can happen
>> to a company.
>
>You are an absolute asshole. Getting convicted results from illegal
>behavior. Most companies do not engage in illegal activity. Microsoft did.
>
>Your conduct here is unwelcome. This is an ADVOCACY group for ONE product
>and ONE product ONLY - Warp.
Ahem....
Bob,
If you care to look at the newsgroups line, you may be in for a surprise...
>Your advocacy of MS crap is a rude intrusion. Therefore you deserve rude
>treatment.
>
>Go fuck yourself you worthless pile of rotten shit.
>
>--
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 13
>MR/2 Ice 2.19 Registration Number 67
>As the court closes in on M$, Lemmings are morphing to Ostrats!
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
--
John
------------------------------
From: Peter Ammon <[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: Thu, 11 May 2000 08:00:28 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Christopher Smith wrote:
>
> "Joseph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >
> > 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.
>
> You're kidding right ? You'd prefer they just wandered around wondering why
> something wasn't working ?
>
> Sheesh, I suppose you think people shouldn't be warned not to stick knives
> into toasters, as well ?
Let's say that Microsoft begins "warning people of possible
incompatibilities" with Be OS, because, after all, it's possible that
there are incompatibilities. The end result is that people no longer
use Be OS and Windows on the same hardware.
Is this OK with you?
-Peter
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
