Linux-Advocacy Digest #474, Volume #26 Fri, 12 May 00 08:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 ("David Brown")
Re: M$ wants to censor Slashdot - ISPs Beware! ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: That Pig Fuckinliar strikes again ("Erik Funkenbusch")
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: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software ("Erik Funkenbusch")
RE: Microsoft Office Linux Edition! ("Alberto Trillo")
Re: Erik Fuckingliar Strikes Again (tinman)
Re: Here is the solution (Joe Ragosta)
Re: Linux - - Troll (the_mighty_balloo)
Re: How to properly process e-mail ("Erik Funkenbusch")
RE: Ease of Upgrading, was, Re: X Windows must DIE!!! ("Alberto Trillo")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.lang.basic,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 12:15:44 +0200
How about deleting Excel and installing StarOffice? It is also much better
at reading older formats (Excel 97 has trouble with a lot of Excel 5 files -
I use StarOffice to do the convertion for those less fortunate).
Anyway, you should never be using Excel (or Word) to view files people send
you. Download the free viewers from MS - even if you have the full
monstrosities installed, the viewers are orders of magnitude smaller and
faster, and are free from all the security holes associated with office
macros.
Bob May wrote in message ...
>But what do you do when somebody sends you an Excel worksheet and you
>are on an earlier version of Excel? You are flat out not able to read
>the format, much less read it with Works, another microcrud product!
>--
>Bob May
>
>Don't subscribe to ACCESS1 for your webserver for the low prices. The
>service has
>been lousy and has been poor for the last year. Bob May
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: M$ wants to censor Slashdot - ISPs Beware!
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 04:37:03 -0500
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> 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.
Name three.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: That Pig Fuckinliar strikes again
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 05:54:11 -0500
You know Bob, Boris is much more entertaining than you. It must pain you
greatly to know that people find you so mediocre.
Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:391b8b63$5$obot$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On 05/11/2000 at 07:24 PM,
> "Erik Fuckingliar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
>
> > WNetEnumCachedPasswords is undocumented, but it's not intended to be
> > used by normal applications. It's purpose is to be there for MAPI,
> > which any application can take advantage of. Do you have any proof of
> > any MS applications that use this API?
>
>
>
> DO you have any proof you exist?
>
>
> --
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
====================
> Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 13
> MR/2 Ice 2.19 Registration Number 67
> As the court closes in on M$, Lemmings are morphing to Ostrats!
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
===================
>
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.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 06:03:41 -0500
Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > > 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.
No Joseph, you claimed that Andrew Schulman wrote things which he did not.
You also claimed that Excel took advantage of API's it didn't.
You also claim that Wingz existed for Windows 2.0, yet I proved that it
didn't come out until well after the release of Windows 3.0
> > > 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.
Windows ran on less than 1% of machines then. It can hardly be argued that
Windows was a monopoly then.
> > > 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.
I followed up the post with a URL.
There were beta versions of Windows 3.0 for almst a year before it shipped,
and beta SDK's as well. On top of that, much of Wingz code was ported from
the Macintosh, thus they only had to write the UI. It most certainly is not
impossible or even unlikely that they shipped when they did for Windows 3.0.
------------------------------
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: Fri, 12 May 2000 06:19:17 -0500
Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > 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.
How many times do I have to prove you wrong Joseph?
> > 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.
Incorrect.
http://www.ddj.com/articles/1993/9309/9309d/9309d.htm
"the AARD code relies heavily on undocumented DOS functions and data
structures. The undocumented INT 21h Function 52h is called to get a pointer
to the DOS internal SysVars structure, popularly known as the "List of
Lists." SysVars contains pointers to other DOS internal data structures,
such as the current directory structure (CDS) and system file table (SFT).
The AARD code checks a number of these pointers in SysVars, ensuring that
none are null."
> The OS/2 comment is bizzare since OS/2 with VDM shipped within a month
> of the GA Windows3.1.
With an IBM modified version of Windows.
Also from the same link as above:
"Finally, the code fails in an OS/2 DOS box, where the DOS version number is
10.0 or greater (for example, OS/2 2.1 masquerades as DOS 20.10)."
> > > 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.
They did identify that defects existed in the memos.
------------------------------
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: Fri, 12 May 2000 06:29:00 -0500
Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > > 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?
Also from the same URL I posted in another message:
"So whenever I've heard accusations that Microsoft practices so-called
"cruel coding" to keep Windows from running on DR DOS, I look at the facts:
Windows 3.1 Enhanced mode does run on DR DOS. Standard mode does not run,
but that's because of a DR DOS bug acknowledged by Novell (see Undocumented
DOS, Second Edition)."
By the way, Caldera itself linked to this URL as part of it's trial
information, thus implicitly approving it's content.
------------------------------
From: "Alberto Trillo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: Microsoft Office Linux Edition!
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 11:20:26 GMT
> How long did it take them to surpass NS after undermining
> Netscape's availablity to pay for development?
IE won Netscape very quickly, most if we consider that NS
had almost the full market when IE 2.0 was a shit browser. Now
I just use Netscape when I can't use IE (by far better). If Netscape
6.0 is Netscape answer, I guess IE will remain winner.
> How long have they been trying to out-Unix Unix?
Only since NT 4 server, that is ... if I am not wrong, 1996, four
years; and only with W2K it pretends to be able to replace every
Unix use. And I think it is going very well; just think that at 1995,
the best Microsoft OS was Windows 95 (well, NT 3.51 was good
for little networks), and now, Microsoft OS's can (theorically) be
used for everything.
I am not advocating Windows, just saying what I think. On the
other side, GNU/Linux have improved too a lot since 1995. When
I started with Slackware 1.0 it was a pain to use X11, to use modem,
etc ... now, that all come for granted just after installation. I like
open source, but do not think every Microsoft programmer is shit;
indeed I think they have good teams. I'd like to see projects as
large as Microsoft teams manage, evolving as fast as they do, under
GNU/Linux and test how many bugs they have. Office is a monster
code, and W2K the same. Microsoft knows how to do good code
(take a look at their last MPEG compression software), and knows
to copy very well.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (tinman)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Erik Fuckingliar Strikes Again
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 07:27:50 -0400
In article <8fgacg$oh5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Christopher Smith"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Timberwoof" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <391b8aa4$2$obot$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bob Germer
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > On 05/11/2000 at 06:23 PM,
> > > "Erik Fuckingliar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > >
> > >
> > > > You haven't proved the use of undocumented API's in any 32 bit
> > > > software.
> > > > Yet I've proven through objective 3rd party documentation that the use
> > > > of undocumented API's in the early Windows 3.x days was almost
> entirely
> > > > leftover from a time when the OS was not an OS. (proving that you lied
> > > > about undocumented API's that you were aware of as well).
> > >
> > >
> > > You continue to cross post into comp.os.os2.advocacy where you are most
> > > unwelcome. Therefore, you are forever known as Erik Fuckingliar.
> >
> > Bob, shall we come up with some clever name to call you, as you keep
> > corssposting this lame namecalling to comp.sys.mac.advocacy,
> > comp.os.linux.advocacy, comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy?
>
> Boob Germer has been the accepted name ever since (I think) he tried to
> claim that the USB bus doesn't provide power to peripherals.
Not such a good choice, it's insulting to both women's anatomy and seabirds.
He needs a new moniker. Ladies and Gentleman, I suggest a contest!
Winners get to join Bob's country club, unless, of course, they are
cornell grads. ('
--
______
tinman
------------------------------
From: Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Here is the solution
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 11:28:24 GMT
In article <vBIS4.629$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik Funkenbusch"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.
>
Swoooooooooossssshhhhhh...
There go those goalposts again.
--
Regards,
Joe Ragosta
Get $10 free:
https://secure.paypal.com/auction/pal=jragosta%40earthlink.net
Or get paid to browse the web (Mac or PC):
http://www.alladvantage.com/home.asp?refid=KJS595
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk,alt.fan.karl-malden.nose,alt.support.cable-modem.kiddies,alt.usenet.kooks
Subject: Re: Linux - - Troll
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (the_mighty_balloo)
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 11:34:46 GMT
Flaagg escribió en artículo:
> I'm downloading all 640 megs of the Linux Mandrake 7 ISO. I
> just might install it, too.
>
> Don't ask me why.
I'd reinstall on *this* computer, but that would mean losing
my pr0n archive hard drive. Two gigs, daily downloads and
I still haven't found any porn stars with clean fingernails.
--
mhm15x1 les miaos rouges http://www.nfilter.org/
Benjamin D. Capoeman now stop whining
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and meow
http://www.angelfire.com/yt/sergi/ !
"What is it about the Usenet groups that attracks all
the kooks and gooks and geeks and nerds."
-Jaue Lang, complaining about the racist
dehumanising Meowers in article
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How to properly process e-mail
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 06:43:53 -0500
Rob S. Wolfram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[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.
Outlook passes the document to SHShellExecute, which is a function of the
shell. The shell then decides what to do with the document.
------------------------------
From: "Alberto Trillo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x
Subject: RE: Ease of Upgrading, was, Re: X Windows must DIE!!!
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 11:47:54 GMT
> All I can say is.... after the initial learning curve (which I am still
trying to learn more
> commands to use at the command line daily) Linux ....well...for me
anyway.... Linux ROCKS!!!!
Windows NT workstation ROCKS too if you spend the same time than on your
GNU/Linux
on configuration. Student version is 80$ and you can use it with every piece
of GNU, free, share
software around for Windows 3.x,95 and NT (and several for DOS). You've got
JDK (with
native threads support, something GNU/Linux fails at), you've got PERL,
you've got Tcl/Tk, you've
got a true 32bits system. You loose some things from GNU/Linux, but you win
some things from
Windows and DOS; you loose some things from Windows 9x, but you do not get
BSOD's, and
machine is perfect for home workstation. There are home firewalls, IRC
clients and scripts, mail
clients, IE 5 (the best browser nowadays) all for free, and the so ... this
is for Windows 2000
Professional too.
> No crashes.... no being win-nuked daily on irc...LOTS of freebie
programs..... and what the
> heck....I like Linux because it gives me that old sense of "newness"
again.... the
> adventure.... the learning... the finding something "new" about the OS
everyday...
That is just a personal feeling, you can learn things every day in each
of the OS's on the
world, and you can make some programs too, do not think GNU is only for Unix
style, and
NT/2000 is Posix compliant. Just use Java and you'll learn some thing every
day, and you can
use it at a stable OS, with Unicode native support (GNU/Linux lacks too).
> course...I'm a bit of a "Betazoid" so maybe that's a huge part of it for
me... but I really like
> Linux enough that I use the Linux "side" of my hard drive well over 90% of
the time... and
> really...I'm as newbie about Linux as anyone...I'm not afraid to crash and
burn...and I'm not
> afraid to learn... But is any OS perfect??? not one OS is perfect...
Sure, I am frustrated, I use at home Windows 9x, 2000, GNU/Linux (two
distros, work and
testing), Solaris, FreeBSD and BEOS, and at work just NT and Solaris, and I
still haven't found
what I'm looking for. I think it should be open source, and with a mix of
features existent and
to come.
> But Linux suits me fine (I'll still keep WinDos just because I have a few
programs on it that I
> like and well...I just don't wanna let go yet...maybe someday I
will???)...
It does for me too at most things, but not at every thing; besides, I
like testing every OS
out there. And ... should I dare to say ... I like Windows look and feel ...
> Ok so the point is....after installing a few distros and a few versions of
those distros....uhm
> Redhat and Caldera both are really ...I mean REALLY easy...and the
upgrade??? just go for it as
> if a new install...but at some point it asks you... something about
upgrade or new install???
> just choose the "upgrade" option and you don't lose anything you had
before (I know because I
> did exactly that) I mean...is that easy or is that easy?
Not every upgrade goes so fine, upgrading is not as clean as you claim it
to be always, it depends
on the version and on the distro. Anyway, for me (as for may other)
difficulty is not the problem. I
got old using CP/M, DOS (raw command line, IRQ settings and the so ...) and
Assembler.
> oh yeah... I like that there are different distros....I want to be able to
CHOOSE and let the
> best distro for me get my time and/or money (usually a little of both).
Well, I like too, but it'd be nice they follow some kind of standards
about config files, boot
system and the so ...
> in fact...WinDos would or could be better if it was open source... (at
least I think it would,
> with more programmers working on the kernel??? it would have to be...do ya
think???)
Windows 9x is unstable just because of the backwards compatibility.
Windows code may
be a crap one, but on the other side, it is wonderful that a 16/32 bits mix
like that behaves
as a more than less usable OS. The tips and tricks used at Windows 95 and 98
is enormous.
On the other side, NT is a good OS (not perfect, of course). On the GNU
side, there are
a lot of crap code too. Kernel and a lot of things are state of the art
(though with tips and tricks
too ... and of course bugs, exploits and security fails, as every soft out
there), but there are
things bad done. X11 is fine, but I think it should be another stand alone
workstation GUI not
as overheaded as X. Then comes the lack of powerful software, and when there
is, it is
not open source (for now). Netscape, StarOffice, Oracle ... all of that are
not open source. May
be IIS is buggy, but Apache has its bugs too, and sendmail, and X11 ... take
a look at the
security advises on every distro page ... is all the same, large projects
include bugs (this is a
law). The same on Windows, GNU/Linux, Solaris or whatever OS on the world.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
