Linux-Advocacy Digest #470, Volume #26 Fri, 12 May 00 03:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Peter Ammon)
Re: Dvorak calls Microsoft on 'innovation' (Gary Connors)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Joseph)
Re: Here is the solution (Joseph)
Re: Here is the solution (Joseph)
Re: Slashdot is down (Chris Aakre)
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 ("Christopher Smith")
Re: German Govt says Microsoft a security risk (Darren Winsper)
Re: How to properly process e-mail (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software ("Phil Brewster")
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Joseph)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Joseph)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Joseph)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Peter Ammon)
Re: How to properly process e-mail (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: German Govt says Microsoft a security risk (Gerald Willmann)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Fri, 12 May 2000 01:36:44 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Christopher Smith 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.
>
> But Microsoft could fix problems in MS DOS. They couldn't in DRDOS.
But they could create problems in DR-DOS...and did!
-Peter
------------------------------
From: Gary Connors <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dvorak calls Microsoft on 'innovation'
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 01:48:30 -0400
in article 8etjfd$p1q$[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] at
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 5/5/00 12:42 AM:
>> And Mosaic was created on Unix, AFAIK, starting it all. (Internet
>> Explorer was created from Spyglass code; I think Netscape might
>> have been, too; both are now heavily mutated, of course.)
>
> There is some mighty historical revisionism!
>
> The first wide-spread web browser was Lynx, which was developed on VMS.
> Unix was playing catchup to the web when it finally got its own Lynx
> port and several years later with Mosaic.
>
Ohhh. I think Tim Berners-Lee would disagree with you, you revisionist
historian. He wrote the first WebBrowser on NextStep.
> Ah, but you're a Linux dweeb: you think Linus Torvalds invented the
> Internet, you have never logged onto a VMS system, and you think the
> only two operating systems which exist are Lindows and Winux.
>
I've used VMS. It ownz Unix's ass. Too bad it's more of a bitch to use
than Unix. When was that? Hmmm.. 94? Yeah it was before Win 95 and after
a basic X-Win for Linux. Didn't Compac buy Digital a little while ago?
>> I think a variant of Unix running on the VAX -- I don't know if it
>> was Ultrix, or BSD -- finally figured out that each individual page
Man. Get a clue (I know I'm talking to two authors here). Ultrix runs on
DEC's. Vax, which was made by digital, ran OpenVMS. Definitly not a Unix.
Legendary uptimes. I used to work in a lab a few years back where Vax's
were used as desktop machines (try writing papers with emacs and Tex!). My
old account is still active and I logged in about 2 minutes ago and checked
its uptime. 1251 days, 7 hours, 18 minutes. Get that kind of uptime with
Linux!
>> could be sitting anywhere in physical memory, or swapped out
>> to disk. (VMS might have been there first, though; I don't remember
>> now.)
>
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 22:51:53 -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
Christopher Smith 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.
>
> But Microsoft could fix problems in MS DOS. They couldn't in DRDOS.
Was there ever any confusion about who owned DR DOS? No. No one
expected MS to fix DR DOS.
MS's message didn't identify or refer to any DR DOS problem - MS's
message was not a technical message nor did MS ever imply they would
provide a warrenty for MS DOS and provide fixes for the product.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 22:58:40 -0400
From: Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Here is the solution
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> Alan Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Or how about this site:
> >
> > < http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/4942/index.html>
> >
> > Where the author has this list:
>
> [large list of undocumented functions deleted]
>
> Noone is arguing that there are not undocumented functions. What we're
> arguing is that nobody can provide a list of undocumented functions that
> current Microsoft applications take advantage of. Most (if not all) of
> those API's are used by the OS itself rather than applications.
Noone needs to prove anything more than the fact MS adds undocumented
APIs that their programmers know about and the competitors do not. The
playing field is uneven. Bickering about what is and isn't proven to
your approval is unimportant.
> Undocumented API's exist for every OS, including Linux (if you consider the
> man pages to be the documentation).
The man pages are not the only documentation so you're wrong.
> Sure, you can read the source, and find
> out the low level functions names and function signatures for stuff that's
> not intended for application consumption, but it's really no different.
That's bullshit.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 23:00:14 -0400
From: Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Here is the solution
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> Peter Ammon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >
> > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > "There's a needle somewhere in that haystack, go find it".
> >
> > Why has nobody responded to both of my examples? RegisterServiceProcess
> > and WNetEnumCachedPasswords are two undocumented APIs. I found them at
> http://www.people.unt.edu/~das0015/winapiundoc.html
>
> I answered this already in another post.
>
> RegisterServiceProcess is a documented API which can be found at:
>
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?URL=/library/psdk/win95/95func
> _3t0z.htm
>
> WNetEnumCachedPasswords is undocumented, but it's not intended to be used by
> normal applications. It's purpose is to be there for MAPI, which any
> application can take advantage of. Do you have any proof of any MS
> applications that use this API?
Do you have any proof the API isn't used by any application?
------------------------------
From: Chris Aakre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Slashdot is down
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 23:04:55 -0700
>
> It's great reading comments on slashdot about how unreliable non-Linux
> software is and then having the very site that houses such comments
> (and runs Linux) be down for hours.
If you even read any articles before you post, flamer, you would realize
it was a DDOS attack. Even open-source software can't defend against
that. Oh yes, also, please remind me, what is hotmail.com and
microsoft.com run on? What? Open-source apache? What? On BSD, which is
binary compatible with linux? Ohh... thats right...
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 23:10:42 -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:
>
> 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?
No. I'm right and I didn't know that we had to limit the facts to only
one book about windows 3.0/3.1 in an attmept to deny facts about 2.0.
> > 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.
That's not true and it is also irrelevant. Windows386 was v2.0 and was
a useable version and AMI was a very usable WYSIWYG wordprocessor.
> > 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.
There was no URL to delete in your post -- go back and check like I
did. And the timeline you propose is an impossibility. WINGZ would
have to had use the 2.0 API to ship a product by the date you suggest
even if every thing you claim is 100% true.
------------------------------
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: 12 May 2000 01:00:11 -0500
In article <8fg46f$6lh$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> yup, there's a point. M$ assumes their users are so dumb they won't ever
>> do anything else with their files than what M$ intended to - you can't
>> even look at the files without creating a notepad icon on your desktop
>> first & dragging the files to it, or changing its association. so the
>> innocent user has no choice but starting the virus, if SHe wants to know
>> what it is.
>
>As usual, the FUD flies thick & fast.
>
>Right click a .vbs file and then select "Edit".
There is fear all right, but there is no longer any uncertainty
or doubt. People didn't do what you suggest and they won't
next time either.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[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: Fri, 12 May 2000 16:19:35 +1000
"Peter Ammon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> Christopher Smith 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.
> >
> > But Microsoft could fix problems in MS DOS. They couldn't in DRDOS.
>
> But they could create problems in DR-DOS...and did!
Where ?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Darren Winsper)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: German Govt says Microsoft a security risk
Date: 12 May 2000 06:14:34 GMT
On Thu, 11 May 2000 16:38:44 +0200, Matthias Warkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Our governments'[0] attitude towards Scientology is another reason why
> it's good to live in Germany. They are treating Scientology as what
> they are: a ruthless international corporation with the sole goal of
> amassing as much money as possible and collecting as much data as
> possible about their members for maximum control.
While we're on the rather OT subject, here's a rather useful resource
on Scientology:
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Secrets
Read it and learn why anyone who joins can make light bend towards
them.
--
Darren Winsper (El Capitano) - ICQ #8899775
Stellar Legacy project member - http://www.stellarlegacy.tsx.org
DVD boycotts. Are you doing your bit?
This message was typed before a live studio audience.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How to properly process e-mail
Date: 12 May 2000 01:12:02 -0500
In article <8fg3ss$tbo$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Assuming you understand program execution at all, you know that
>> the .exe file will have the power to do anything that your
>> own permissions allow.
>
>That's a huge assumption. However you didn't answer my question, I'll
>rephrase it.
>
>How does the user know what an .exe file is, the first time they see one ?
They don't. That is why it would be an extremely bad idea to
make it easy to run one received in email.
>> Does outlook directly execute an
>> exe file if you try to open it?
>
>Outlook doesn't "directly execute" anything. It hands the file off the the
>shell telling it that the user wants to activate it. The shell then does
>whatever the default action is for that filetype.
>
>This is, conceptually, basically identical to piping the attachment from a
>mailer program (like Pine) to some other program, somethjing I imagine most
>Unix mailers allow.
Of course - most unix programs have always allowed piping through any
other program. However the difference is that the mailer doesn't
pick the program for you or effectively let the sender select it
(other than perhaps lpr which might be preconfigured). Mailers
that understand MIME types and automatically process them do
so with associations in mailcap, where you typically find concerns
about security.
>So, yes, if you double clicked on an .exe file it would run (after
>prompting).
No unix mailer I've seen would directly execute an attachment or
choose to run it through a shell or command interpreter. The
associations in mailcap are different than what would happen
at a shell or file manager level.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Phil Brewster" <[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: 12 May 2000 00:22:13 -0600
On Thu, May 11, 2000 5:54 PM, Erik Funkenbusch <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>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.
>
>
>
Key passages from the URL that you provided in a previous post, namely:
http://www.ddj.com/articles/1993/9309/9309d/9309d.htm
strongly suggest that any claim the AARD test was intended as an authentic
'DOS compatibility' test or functioned as such, is extremely dubious, to
the point of being entirely disingenuous...
For example:
1) "The AARD code has no relation to the actual purpose of the five
otherwise-unrelated programs into which it has been dropped. It appears to
be a wholly arbitrary test, a gratuitous gatekeeper seemingly with no
purpose other than to smoke out non-Microsoft versions of DOS, tagging them
with an appropriately vague "error" message."
2) "[...] this code seems to have no technically-valid purpose, checking
instead some rather unimportant aspects of DOS. In short, you can have an
otherwise perfectly workable DOS, capable of running Windows, and yet not
pass this test."
3) "[...] the AARD code's test for DOS compatibility is 100 percent
artificial. By Microsoft's definition, only MS-DOS or something
byte-for-byte identical with MS-DOS (and therefore in violation of
copyright) is "100 percent DOS compatible."
-- Sorry, but I simply fail to understand how _anyone_ can have knowledge
of the detailed analysis in Dr Dobb's Journal and continue to make
euphemistic claims about what Microsoft was actually _doing_ with this
particular piece of code...
<*Kelly Bundy*> It wobbles the mind.... <*/Kelly Bundy*>
Cheers,
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 23:21:48 -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:
>
> josco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On Thu, 11 May 2000, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > > > 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.
Sorry but it is - DOS 7.0 and Windows 4.0 are often referred by MS execs
in the documentation of the CALDERA case.
> > 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.
That's a lie. MS Windows 4.0 was always designed to run on DOS 7.0 and
the evolutionary design of windows from WFWG to windows 4.0 into windows
95 is well documented. Windows95 was a later design after DR DOS
becamae a threat to MS's DOS monopoly. Upgrading DOS & Windows would
have made MS more profit. Again, Caldera was able to extend their DR
DOS case to include Windows95 because what I say is true and therefore
you're wrong.
> 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.
Wrong! The earliest claims were teo products, Windows 4.0 and DOS 7.0.
MS then later changed the plans claims AFTER they decided to illegally
tie Windows to DOS. It's all in the Cladera documentation. That fact
is why the judge allowed DR DOS damages to extend to Windows95.
> > > 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.
I did. Implying that MS has a product warrenty is a lie.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 23:28:35 -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:
>
> 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).
MS tested for OS brand.
> 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.
MS did not check the OS for any missing function or defect - aside from
the OS not being a MS brand.
The OS/2 comment is bizzare since OS/2 with VDM shipped within a month
of the GA Windows3.1.
> > 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.
MS's memos state execs asked MS programmers to FIND a way to test and
FUD the non MS brand products. They did not have any specific defect
identified.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 23:29:45 -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:
>
> 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?
What technical problems with DR DOS are you talking about? You have not
mentioned these. What are they?
------------------------------
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: Fri, 12 May 2000 02:28:14 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Christopher Smith wrote:
>
> "Peter Ammon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >
> > Christopher Smith 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.
> > >
> > > But Microsoft could fix problems in MS DOS. They couldn't in DRDOS.
> >
> > But they could create problems in DR-DOS...and did!
>
> Where ?
The AARD code, as the trivial example. There was a famous e-mail
correpondence where a Microsoft executive told his underling that he
should ensure that DR-DOS wouldn't work properly with future versions of Windows.
-Peter
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How to properly process e-mail
Date: 12 May 2000 01:27:29 -0500
In article <8fg2tu$tj6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>You can pipe an attachment to any app from Pine. I'd be astounded if other
>mailers don't support that.
>
>This is basically the Unix equivalent of what Outlook is doing.
Not even close. There is a huge difference between the recipient
choosing the app to run as you would in pine, and the sender
effectively choosing the app as happened in outlook.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Gerald Willmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: German Govt says Microsoft a security risk
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 23:25:06 -0700
On Fri, 12 May 2000, Christopher Browne wrote:
> >But German politicians have the right to tell their citizens that they
> >should not believe in Scientology?
sorry, but your statement reflects the rudimentary information so typical
of the American press. The issue of being recognized as a religion in
Germany is not so much one of whether people are allowed to believe in it
(they are free to believe whatever they want). The issue is rather that
once you are a religion the state collects church tax for you and you have
a say in public radio and tons of other things. You may of course object
to them doing that for the Catholic and other churches (and I would agree
with you) but if you want church taxes collected for Scientology than why
not contact the IRS. And btw, Scientology's desperate and tasteless
propaganda efforts in this matter seem to underline what critics accuse
them of, but the Catholic church is hardly less greedy - only more
established.
Gerald
--
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
