Linux-Advocacy Digest #465, Volume #26 Thu, 11 May 00 20:13:03 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: Not so fast... (George Russell)
Re: How to properly process e-mail (CAguy)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (WickedDyno)
Re: Things Linux can't do! (CAguy)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (WickedDyno)
Re: German Govt says Microsoft a security risk (mlw)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Here is the solution ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (JEDIDIAH)
Re: win millenium (The Ghost In The Machine)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 18:54:31 -0500
josco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> More specifically, a toaster is a class of device, not a brand. DR DOS is
> a brand MS tested for and issued a nonsense warning.
Actually, MS did not test for DR-DOS. Instead, they walked the internal
structures of DOS looking for any variation that would indicate that the
user was not running on MS-DOS or PC-DOS. It just so happens that DR-DOS
failed some of those tests (as I'm sure software like FreeDos would).
The distinction here was not that they tested specifically for DR-DOS, but
for anything that was not compliant enough with MS-DOS to have internal
structures act differently. OS/2's VDM was also effected.
> If MS knews of a specific performance bug or defect then they can flag the
> defect but MS had no such knowledge.
Microsoft internal memo's from the time state otherwise. They say
specifically that DR-DOS has specific defects that cause it to have problems
with Windows.
------------------------------
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 18:55:20 -0500
josco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Thu, 11 May 2000, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> > Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > > MS DOS had technical problems running windows therefore the comment
> > > about DR DOS is a trivial exercise in playing games with semantics.
> >
> > What? That statement makes no sense.
>
> It does and it is still true.
>
> DRDOS and MSDOS BOTH had techncial problems with windows. Claiming there
> were technical problems with DRDOS doesn't justfy what MS did to one
> product but not the other.
What technical problems with DOS are you talking about? You have not
mentioned these before. What were they?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (George Russell)
Subject: Re: Not so fast...
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 23:49:34 GMT
On 11 May 2000 19:04:37 GMT, Darren Winsper wrote:
>On Thu, 11 May 2000 14:02:13 GMT, Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I think many to pretend it can't happen and it's really just far less
>> likely due to market share.
>
>Wrong. Look; RISC OS never had a market share that Linux has now. In
>fact, at its peak, I imagine its market share was around 1/10 of what
>Linux's is now. However, there were plenty of viruses for the
>platform.
Entirely due to a few things
Its used for Copmputer Studies by most of the UK Education System prior to
Tertiary education (unethical intelligent bored students)
Its a wholly insecure single user OS
Rampant Software piracy
Easy to program in both basic and assembler - hell, I've an infected copy of
ArcElite on 800K disk - nowt to read it, but its there.
It was like Amiga / Atari / Apple - just less popular - and all those had many
viruses - of course, declining use of all those (Apple excepted?) has stopped
development of new viruses... too few users now.
George Russell
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (CAguy)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How to properly process e-mail
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 23:49:37 GMT
On Thu, 11 May 2000 19:26:45 -0400, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>When one tries to spawn an executable, or a script, in Netscape. It
>makes a very specific warning. When wishes to open pure data, it does
>not warn. This is different that Windows, where any attachment is
>warned, so the user is accustomed to just clicking through the same
>windows without reading them. You can't argue that Windows is easier to
>use for the non computer literate and ignore the fact people who don't
>understand computers have a tendency to ignore frequent dialog boxes
>with the same text.
>
And how exactly does netscape distinguish data from executables?
Does netscape have a database of all possible file extensions and
what those files do when the program that is associated with that
extension is executed? for example does it know that a *.r file is
a Rebol script? I don't suspect is does. Or will it only launch known
file types?
James
------------------------------
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 19:02:38 -0500
josco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Thu, 11 May 2000, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> > Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > > > MS documents also show the fact that DR-DOS had problems with
Windows.
> > >
> > > So too did MS DOS have technical problems with windows. One supposed
> > > benefit of tying DOS 7.0 to Windows4.0 (windows95) was the reduction
in
> > > technical problems between the MS DOS and Windows.
> >
> > Untrue.
>
> What I said is True.
No, it's not.
> > MS originally intended to completely remove MS DOS from Windows.
> > That turned out to not be feasible due to compatibility issues. There
is
> > lots of evidence that suggests MS intended to remove DOS completely.
>
> That's a lie. MS had publically spoken about and developed DOS 7.0 and
> Windows 4.0. They later merged the two products into windows95 so you
> lied when you said they originally indented to remove DOS.
Microsoft stated very publicly and published in several places (including
Inside Windows 95) that they were going to remove DOS completely from
Windows 4.0. They had been doing so since at least 1993. Microsoft later
rescinded this, as they discovered that removal of DOS would break too many
applications (both Dos and 16 bit Windows) that depended on internal DOS
structures.
In fact, Andrew Schulman in Unauthorized Windows 95 disproved MS's earlier
claims (which MS had stopped making some time earlier, but didn't publicly
retract until after Schulman's information became public). Schulman also
proved that MS couldn't have maintained compatiblity any other way.
> > What do you call no-charge 30 day technical support and a 60 day money
back
> > guarantee, if not a warranty?
>
> If I called it a warranty I'd be lying.
You didn't answer the question.
------------------------------
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: Thu, 11 May 2000 19:57:22 -0400
In article <39195c3d$20$obot$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bob Germer
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 05/09/2000 at 08:01 PM,
> WickedDyno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
>> 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.
>
>What a person does in private is not concern of mine. When a pervert
>openly advocates an immoral lifestyle, he or she become anathema.
So you're the pope now?
--
| 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 |
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (CAguy)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 23:57:34 GMT
On Thu, 11 May 2000 23:41:17 GMT, Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>Linux can't go bankrupt.
>
>Linux will never be drawn into an anti monopolistic lawsuit with the
>Federal Government, or any other Government.
>
>Linux will never be mis-trusted by the public.
>
>Linux will be around when Bill Gates dies.
>
>Linux will be around when Microsoft has long been forgotten and copies
>of
>NT are in the Smithsonian on display!
>
>Linux will most likely outlast several of the worlds governments.
>
>While it's name might not continue to be Linux, through the centuries it
>will travel,
>it will always be with mankind.
>
>Linux is like a statue which has traveled through time.
>
>Linux is like the human race - as long as there is love it will be
>there.
>
>In a strange way, Linux is like the pyramids in the respect that it will
>be
>with mankind for several centuries.
>
>When I went to the Federal Courthouse one time, I had a man explain
>to me that he works for another man who can only be fired by god.
>
>But despite that, a Federal Judge will never be able to do anything
>about
>Linux.
>
>Linux doesn't require a profit to survive!
>
>Linux just needs humans, a small group of humans, to survive.
>
>And we are the generation which has witnessed it's birth.
>
>And for that I feel privileged.
>
>And because Linux has the power of life itself, I really wonder why
>people
>still have faith that Microsoft will be with us in 10 years much less
>20.
>
>Isn't Microsoft a corporation? There are a few corporations which are
>100 years old.
>Don't think the average life span of a computer related corporation is
>anything to write
>home about.
>
>Microsoft is but a mere mortal where Linux is a god!
>
>And as we all know, mere mortals die.
>
>And god's can die too, if they are not loved or needed.
>
>But even gods can be forgotten for several hundred years and then
>be re-discovered and re-incarnated.
>
>No mortal has ever come back from the grave though.
>
>And by the way, haven't you slept long enough?
Don't be so sure...A judge could declare the GPL to be
invalid allowing companies to build proprientary Linux
versions...hopelessly fragmenting the Linux community.
It could happen...
James
------------------------------
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: Thu, 11 May 2000 19:58:57 -0400
In article <391af397$1$obot$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bob Germer
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 05/11/2000 at 12:00 PM,
> WickedDyno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
>
>> Bob can't refute your facts, so he yells at you for being off topic.
>> how typical.
>
>The only way you could possibly recognize a fact would if someone from
>Buffalo State came and showed it to you.
Try harder, Bob. That didn't even make sense.
--
| 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 |
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: German Govt says Microsoft a security risk
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 20:01:34 -0400
Salvador Peralta wrote:
>
> You are correct. There identification of an "evil other" as the root of
> one's problems is not unique to WWII Germany. Neither is the
> expansionist political and economic agenda of the country during that
> time. My point is simply that no government that calls itself democatic
> should actively promote intolerance and exclusion based on differences
> such as religion or race. That the German government is restricting
> free speech and free religion in this way is frightening given what was
> happening there 2 generations ago.
>
I have no problem with the idea that people who practice and promote
irrational behavior be considered a security risk. Most religion is
irrational.
--
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: "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 19:13:21 -0500
josco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Thu, 11 May 2000, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> > Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > > Which version of Windows?
> >
> > 3.0 and 3.1 of course.
>
> I used windows beginning with version 2.0 and the API he worte about was
> in version 2.0.
Undocumented Windows was published in 1992. In the "What versions of
Windows?" section he discusses what the book talks about. Here is the quote
from the book:
"As noted earlier, our goal here is to cover KERNEL, USER, and GDI in
Windows 3.0, 3.1, retail and debug versions, in Standard and Enhanced mode."
Further, he says "Unlike many other Windows programming books that are
revisions of earlier books written during the bad old days of Windows 2.x,
this is an entirely new book and is not carrying around any baggage from
real mode."
Care to try again Joseph?
> > > 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.
>
> A useless Semantic argument: Windows3.0 was also called an environment.
Whatever. The fact is, most experts will tell you that Windows 3.0 was the
first truly useable version of Windows.
> > > 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.
>
> I don't care about your mental problems.
Rather dishonest of you to clip the part in which I proved that Wingz did
not exist in a Windows 2.0 version.
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[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: Fri, 12 May 2000 00:08:05 GMT
"Peter Ammon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Todd wrote:
[snip]
> > If you want to try this challenge, again, just give me *one*
undocumented
> > API call or secret API (whatever) that meets this challenge.
> >
> > I bet that I can write *any* piece of Win32 software with the normal SDK
> > that is downloadable for *free* from MS's web site.
> >
> > All you conspiracy theorists are welcome to take this challenge.
> >
> > Just *one* API call is all I'm asking for here...
>
> A quick search of "undocumented API" reveals not one, but two.
What did you search to find these, anyway?
> RegisterServiceProcess, in KERNEL32.DLL, appears to "Register a process
> as a service, which means it doesn't show up in the Control+Alt+Delete
> program list,"
This one is documented on MSDN. A URL for you:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/psdk/win95/95func_3t0z.htm
> and there is also WNetEnumCachedPasswords in MPR.DLL
> which "Retrieves all of the current user's cached passwords, and calls
> the specified callback procedure with a pointer to each one."
This one is mentioned on MSDN, here:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/ddkdoc/win95ddk/network_0228.htm
Which says that this API has been discontinued; it was
apparently a windows-for-workgroups only thing, and
no longer works.
Other pages on MSDN tell you to look in the Windows for
Workgroups SDK for more information, but this is not available
online. Seemingly it was documented when it was current,
though.
It appears that MS is trying to make sure you *cannot* enumerate
the users cached passwords. Sensible enough, as a security
measure. There is, for instance, a knowledge base article
explaining that someone discovered a way to crack the encryption
on the password-cache file, and gives a patch to defeat this.
> The WINE project also seems to have a great deal of information on
> undocumented Windows APIs.
One hopes it is more accurate. :D
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
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: Fri, 12 May 2000 00:08:09 GMT
On Thu, 11 May 2000 18:55:20 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>josco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Thu, 11 May 2000, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>
>> > Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> > > MS DOS had technical problems running windows therefore the comment
>> > > about DR DOS is a trivial exercise in playing games with semantics.
>> >
>> > What? That statement makes no sense.
>>
>> It does and it is still true.
>>
>> DRDOS and MSDOS BOTH had techncial problems with windows. Claiming there
>> were technical problems with DRDOS doesn't justfy what MS did to one
>> product but not the other.
>
>What technical problems with DOS are you talking about? You have not
>mentioned these before. What were they?
Not having enough conventional memory to do anything useful
in Windows would be one of my more favorite ones.
--
In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: win millenium
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 00:09:12 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on Thu, 11 May 2000 11:29:15 -0500 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Martijn Bruns wrote:
>
>> What more can you tell us about it? It's good to know about the
>> competition :-)
>
>Don't we already know what new features it will have?
>
>1. Windows ME will be FASTER
>2. Windows ME will be more STABLE
>3. Windows ME will be more FUN
>4. Windows ME will make me more PRODUCTIVE
And, the most important one:
5. Windows ME will make ME, Bill Gates, more money :-).
>
>At this rate, having analyzed trends in M$ OS development, they
>will have a stable, fast, fun and productive OS in exactly one
>(more) millennium.
>
>For those that have the time to wait, that is.
Indeed.
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- no, I'm not Bill Gates. Maybe 1 millionth or so
of Bill Gates...
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
