Linux-Advocacy Digest #473, Volume #26 Fri, 12 May 00 06:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: How to properly process e-mail (Rob S. Wolfram)
Re: Things Linux can't do! (Tim Koklas)
Re: Things Linux can't do! (Truckasaurus)
Re: Why Solaris is better than Linux (Full Name)
Re: Things Linux can't do! (Truckasaurus)
Re: Microsoft invents XML! (Karel Jansens)
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (J French)
Re: M$ wants to censor Slashdot - ISPs Beware! ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: How to properly process e-mail (Rob S. Wolfram)
Re: How to properly process e-mail (Rob S. Wolfram)
Re: How to properly process e-mail (Rob S. Wolfram)
Re: How to properly process e-mail (Rob S. Wolfram)
Re: M$ wants to censor Slashdot - ISPs Beware! (No Name)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob S. Wolfram)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How to properly process e-mail
Date: 12 May 2000 06:46:16 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Rob S. Wolfram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Let's clarify what I mean with "auto-execute". I mean that the
>> application you're using (the mailreader) will spawn the executable
>> content by itself, bypassing the shell in the process. I don't give a
>> flying hoot if warnings of potential danger are issued, it still
>> executes the content by itself. That's not FUD, that's a fact.
>
>No, it's not. The email program launches the attachment by sending it to
>the shell. It calls the exact same API that get's called when you double
>click a document file in explorer. The shell is what determines what
>application to launch when the attachment is opened, not the email program.
Maybe you should catch up on your Tanenbaum or Shilbersatz. The shell is
considered that part of the OS that translates /user input/ to commands
to the underlying parts of the OS. So in your case, it can be
explorer.exe or CMD.exe. The API that's called is an underlying part.
Outlook DOES bypass the shell (or better put, acts itself as a shell).
In my case the shell is either zsh or ctwm.
>> MIME has been commonplace in the Unix world for the last 8 years, and
>> uuencode/uudecode has been common in Unix many years before that. Still,
>> after all these years, it is not common for Unix MUAs to spawn
>> executables.
>
>Depends on what you mean by common. Netscape is certainly common and it
>does, so is Sun's email client.
Pure FUD. Netscape is common but DOES NOT EXECUTE email content. I tried
it before replying by sending myself a mail with 4 attachments, a sh
script, a perl script, an ELF executable and Happy99.exe. *ALL* of them
defaulted to saving to disk. Also there is NO WAY to configure Netscape
to spawn ELF executables. It can execute shell scripts if you
explicitely configure it to spawn the corresponding shell with the
script as argument.
And no, dtmail is NOT common. It's preinstalled on every Solaris system
out there, but hardly used. We have quite a number of Solaris users at
our POW and I know of only ONE who uses dtmail regularly. I do wonder,
however if it will execute Solaris Binaries. I'll test it in a couple of
hours.
Lets repeat it loud and clear: EXECUTING EMAIL CONTENT IS *VERY
UNCOMMON* IN UNIX MUAS.
Cheers,
Rob
--
Rob S. Wolfram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PGP 0x07606049 GPG 0xD61A655D
There's nobody getting rich writing software that I know of.
-- Bill Gates, 1980
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: Tim Koklas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 08:47:59 GMT
God, how long have you been typing this post?
------------------------------
From: Truckasaurus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 08:49:24 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (CAguy) wrote:
(...)
> 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...
So let's say Saddam Hussein declares the GPL to be invalid.
Exactly how will this hurt Linux?
The thing is, if a government declares the GPL (a license) invalid,
it will damage the faith in that government, not the worldwide accepted
licensing system.
Bottom line: Licenses (hereunder GPL) will exist, as long as humans find
property rights convenient.
--
"It's the best $50 bucks I ever spent. I would have paid five
times that for what your 'New You' packet allowed me to do!!!"
-- K. Waterbury, CA
Martin A. Boegelund.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Full Name)
Subject: Re: Why Solaris is better than Linux
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 09:18:01 GMT
Solaris on Sun hardware works.
Linux on Intel hardware doesn't.
Is there a need to say any more?
On Wed, 10 May 2000 14:29:07 GMT, "Lord Williams"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Technically Solaris is more advanced especially in
>features for working on very large systems -- ones with dozens of processors
>or even clusters of ones with dozens of processors. It "scales" much better
>meaning that as processors are added performance goes up. This is never
>linear, i.e., 8 processors won't give you twice the performance of 4, but for
>most operating systems, especially NT but now, anyway, still Linux, you get
>zero additional performance after 4 for NT and probably the same for Linux.
>Solaris is also much much more stable. Big Solaris systems attain what's
>known as "5 9's" -- 99.999% uptime. That comes out to 5 minutes of downtime
>per year.
>
>Still Linux has some nice advantages of its own. It has lots of driver
>support. It easily outshines Solaris in support for the types of devices
>you find on PC's -- the myriad of boards. Someone somewhere has built a
>driver for just about anything you might have. It also has desktop tools and
>utilities. Solaris has become mainly a server operating system so people
>aren't building office sorts of products for Solaris. There is some activity
>in products like this for Linux, but still nothing like what's available for
>Windows, not even 1%. Solaris is free for individual use but it is not free
>for commercial use which Linux is.
>
>However the downside is that there is no market value for anyone programming
>in Linux or anyone administrating networks in Linux ( Its the same problem with
>BeOS). However there is a great market value for Solaris OS platform
>programming and administration fields. Solaris programmers are more sucessful
>programmers than linux programers, their pay salery is far greater.
>
>
>This info is %100 right!
>
>--
>Williams
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: Truckasaurus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 09:07:12 GMT
In article <8fft43$ls5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In article <66KS4.2874$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "ax" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> <snip>
> > Without the
> > timing of Microsoft court trouble, could Linux hype that much?
>
> Sure. This industry is all about change. Change wiped out DEC, sent
> IBM to its knees, and made a monopoly out of a half-assed desktop
> operating systems vendor.
>
> Its time for a change again.
Amen, brother.
But the sad truth is, that not the best product will be favoured by the
consumer, only the best marketet product. And Linux does not have much
money for marketing purposes.
This is the only thing that can inhibit Linux world domination (;-)
As long as MS can put a sticker on Win* boxes, saying
"New and improved!
Faster and more stable than ever!
Widely supprted!
Talking paperclip included!
Get your copy now!"
- consumers will go for it:
Win vs OS/2, Mac,
VHS vs Betamax, 2000,
<insert your own examples here>
--
"It's the best $50 bucks I ever spent. I would have paid five
times that for what your 'New You' packet allowed me to do!!!"
-- K. Waterbury, CA
Martin A. Boegelund.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft invents XML!
Date: 12 May 2000 10:29:15 GMT
tholenbot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On what basis do you claim that the lunatic is "on the grass"?
>
Ahhh... The Seventies...
<sigh>
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: [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: Fri, 12 May 2000 09:33:24 GMT
On Thu, 11 May 2000 21:13:42 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Quoting J French from alt.destroy.microsoft; Thu, 11 May 2000 09:10:06 GMT
> [...]
>>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.
>
>Perhaps you are unaware that Microsoft did not develop nor introduce the
>floppy disk, nor have anything to do with these other things you seem to think
>are part of the operating system. This is a hardware issue. This would make
>you somewhat less than knowledgable on these subjects, to be honest.
>
Ok - to be honest - Microsoft did not invent the floppy - actually now
I remember 8" disks, 5.25" disks - Oh Yes the PC 160kb single sided
floppy. Do you remember the Sirius multi-speed disk ?
>>However it was the IBM PC that set the standard - not Microsoft - they
>>just implemented software on a standard machine.
>
>Then why did you say that Microsoft was a positive influence?
Because they and Lotus (a rip off of Visicalc) ported languages and
software to the IBM PC which meant that people could get things up and
running in *hours*.
If you look at DOWS 1.0 it was virtually CP/M compatible at the
interrupt level.
>
>>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.
>
>Alas, the horrible technical monstrosity of Win32 from a knowledgable user's
>standpoint is one of the few bad things that Microsoft has done which will
>never be considered a crime. I don't understand the "vertical split with
>initially identical source code" idea, nor why it keeps cropping up.
>
Yes well - just think about it.
Tip: 2 programmers working in separate room on 2 parts of an app.
or 2 programmers working in different rooms on the same app
+ 1 public deciding which one gets a paycheck this month
>That bugs me. Most of the time when people make the same mistake over and
>over again, I can pretty easily deconstruct the underlying flaw in their
>thinking, the conceptual pitfall which catches the unaware. But in this case,
>I have to admit that I am stumped.
>
Yeah - so whats new
>Where *does* this idea come from? Why is it so easily considered a "good
>idea", and the OS/apps split not?
>
OS/apps split is fine - it is just not enough
>--
>T. Max Devlin
>Manager of Research & Educational Services
>Managed Services
>ELTRAX Technology Services Group
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
> my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
> applicable licensing agreement]-
>
>
>-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
>http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
>-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: M$ wants to censor Slashdot - ISPs Beware!
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 03:41:23 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Do these bozos just sit around all day smoking crack and dreaming up new
> ways to piss off Judge Jackson, the DOJ, and their customers?
Well, when you don't want to work at improving your products, you've got to
find some other way to spend you time. Idle time, devil's workshop, and
all that.
It would be interesting to know what their ratio of lawyers:engineers is,
though.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob S. Wolfram)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How to properly process e-mail
Date: 12 May 2000 09:17:57 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CAguy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>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?
Netscape uses an own database based on either the mime-type, or the
"filename extension". Most other MUAs use /etc/mailcap and
$HOME/.mailcap for this purpose (based only on the mime type).
Cheers,
Rob
--
Rob S. Wolfram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PGP 0x07606049 GPG 0xD61A655D
There's nobody getting rich writing software that I know of.
-- Bill Gates, 1980
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob S. Wolfram)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How to properly process e-mail
Date: 12 May 2000 09:22:49 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Rob S. Wolfram" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Let's clarify what I mean with "auto-execute". I mean that the
>> application you're using (the mailreader) will spawn the executable
>> content by itself, bypassing the shell in the process. I don't give a
>> flying hoot if warnings of potential danger are issued, it still
>> executes the content by itself. That's not FUD, that's a fact.
>
>No, it's FUD. Outlook passes the attachment to the shell, which then
>performs the default action upon it.
No, the shell is that part of the OS that translates /user input/ for
the underlying OS. Outlook acts ITSELF as a shell, it shurely doesn't
spawn explorer.exe or CMD.exe waiting for the user to input something of
his own choice.
Fact.
Cheers,
Rob
--
Rob S. Wolfram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PGP 0x07606049 GPG 0xD61A655D
The difference between Microsoft and 'Jurassic Park':
In one, a mad businessman makes a lot of money with beasts that
should be extinct. The other is a film.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob S. Wolfram)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How to properly process e-mail
Date: 12 May 2000 09:52:23 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>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.
No, it is not. Piping an attachment is a clear choice of THE USER for
which application needs to be started. I can also just enter on the
attachment (using pine, elm+me or mutt) and it will use the mailcap
file(s) and the mimetype to determine what to do with the file. If I
would add to my ~/.mailcap, the following line:
application/x-sh;/bin/sh %s
it would also "auto-execute" shell scripts. The difference is that this
is highly uncommon for Unux MUAs and highly common for Windows MUAs.
>So, yes, if you double clicked on an .exe file it would run (after
>prompting).
If I hit enter on a shell script or ELF binary in Mutt or click on it in
Netscape, it will not execute. If I hit enter on a jpg image in Mutt it
will use Imagemagick to display it. If I hit enter on an AVI file in
Mutt it will use xanim to display the move. If I hit enter on an mp3
file in Mutt it will play it via mpg123. Do you finally see the
difference between open and execute?
Cheers,
Rob
--
Rob S. Wolfram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PGP 0x07606049 GPG 0xD61A655D
Military intelligence is a contradiction in terms.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob S. Wolfram)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How to properly process e-mail
Date: 12 May 2000 09:36:53 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:8fe868$p18$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Exactly. Which begs the question, what exactly is the point of this
>> feature?
>
>So you can do nice things like open jpegs, C files, zips etc just by
>launching them from the email they arrived with.
Which is perfectly possible with pine, elm and mutt. What is the
correlation between the possibility of *executing* email content and
being able to *open* an attachment with a pre-defined executable?
>> Sendmail has been able to pipe email through programs for
>> decades. That has many useful applications, such as the vacation
>> program and email filters.
>
>Which is, to all intents and purposes, exactly what happens in Outlook.
No, it's not, even by a far cry. In Senmail's case the administrator on
THIS side of the fence determined which application gets called for the
email. In Outlook's case, it's determined by the SENDER of the email,
simply by choosing the proper filename extension..
>> But what possible reason could there be
>> for executing code from an email client?
>
>For the Nth time, IT ISN'T "EXECUTED" FROM THE EMAIL CLIENT.
>
>Outlook hands the file off to the shell saying "the user has double clicked
>on this". The shell then does to that file whatever it would do to any
>other file of that type if double clicked on.
Lookup what a shell is and come back when you know. There's no
shell-defined user interaction between the double click and the
execution.
>> Give me one good application for that particular feature other than
>> annoying the hapless user who isn't up on every potential extension
>> and what it does.
>
>Opening a zip file from an attachment.
A zip file is non-executable content that is opened with the proper
application. The zip content is not interpreted with the execution of
commands based on that content. /THAT/ is the difference.
Cheers,
Rob
--
Rob S. Wolfram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PGP 0x07606049 GPG 0xD61A655D
The difference between Microsoft and 'Jurassic Park':
In one, a mad businessman makes a lot of money with beasts that
should be extinct. The other is a film.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (No Name)
Subject: Re: M$ wants to censor Slashdot - ISPs Beware!
Date: 12 May 2000 09:49:15 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 11 May 2000 19:37:57 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch said:
>billy ball <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Thu, 11 May 2000 22:03:21 GMT, scumbucket <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>> >This is the full spec:
>>
>> [M$ "copyrighted" info snipped]
>>
>> what's really sad is that:
>>
>> 1) M$ uses perverse, insipid legal verbiage
>
>You mean like the GPL.
>
>> 2) people and companies are initimated by M$ tactics
>
>You mean like the GPL. Every company i've worked for has banned useage of
>code found on the internet due to the GPL's hardline tactics of forcing any
>developer that includes GPL'd code to publish all of their code. They
>simply don't want to take the chance.
Ugh! I will delete all the copies of Samba, Perl, Emacs (which came
I think with Sun compilers) and my slrn copy as well. Holly cow! We
are running also Apache! We are doomed! Ahhhhhhh!!!!
Before we go into oblivion I will call my wife's company to
warn them as well: they develop software for the oil industry,
they use a lot of GPL/open source/call it as you wish software,
and, oh fools! they are porting their most popular application to,
gulp, LINUX! Doom!
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
