Linux-Advocacy Digest #475, Volume #26 Fri, 12 May 00 10:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Erik Fuckingliar Strikes Again (Joe Ragosta)
Re: Erik Fuckingliar Strikes Again ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (Michael W. Cocke)
Re: M$ wants to censor Slashdot - ISPs Beware!
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! (Donal K. Fellows)
This is Bullsh&^%T!!! (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (J French)
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: How to properly process e-mail ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Things Linux can't do! ("ax")
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Joseph)
Re: How to properly process e-mail ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
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 ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Joseph)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Joseph)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Erik Fuckingliar Strikes Again
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 12:16:07 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (tinman) wrote:
> 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. ('
How about "Bob Gerber" as a reference to his mental age?
--
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
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Erik Fuckingliar Strikes Again
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 07:34:00 -0500
Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > 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. ('
>
> How about "Bob Gerber" as a reference to his mental age?
Despite Bob's obvious infatuation with name calling, I don't think it's
particularly mature to stoop to his level.
------------------------------
From: Michael W. Cocke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 08:41:08 -0500
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.lang.basic
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Thu, 11 May 2000 21:13:42 -0400, T. Max Devlin 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.
No, Microsoft didn't invent the floppy disk. HOWEVER, sides, density, #
of tracks, # of sectors, hard vs. soft sectoring were all variables.
GAH!
Heaven knows, I don't like Microsoft, but even I will admit they did
SOME good. Yes, the issue is one of hardware, but market pressure
caused the standardization of the hardware, and nobody does market
pressure like microsoft.
Mike-
===================================================================
Please note: My Email and web page addresses have changed!
The new email address is [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The web page is at http://www.catherders.com
Because network administration is like herding cats.
===================================================================
====== 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: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: M$ wants to censor Slashdot - ISPs Beware!
Date: 12 May 2000 12:44:49 GMT
Bobby D. Bryant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It would be interesting to know what their ratio of lawyers:engineers is,
> though.
My mom used to work for a large drug company. She stated the ratio of lawyers to
researchers was 1:1. Possibly due to writing those profitable patents.
> Bobby Bryant
> Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: 12 May 2000 12:38:45 GMT
In article <FzgS4.724$ds3.865@client>,
Nik Simpson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But it also leads to its own problems with Trojan attacks. If I can
> get access to a script I can change the interpreter for that script
> to something I want you to run, if necessary I could easily cover my
> tracks by also execing the correct interpreter for the script. No
> system is perfect. The difference between the #! approach and the
> Windows approach is the ability to define associations on a per file
> basis, but from a security context both are just as suspect.
This is why you don't have directories writable by other users (or
containing files writable by other users) on your path. And most
Unixes now pass an open file descriptor (via /proc on Linux, for
example) to the script interpreter instead of a filename so that
whatever file it was that you executed is exactly the file that gets
interpreted (the standard FS semantics helps here too, though NFS
mucks this up, as usual...)
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- I may seem more arrogant, but I think that's just because you didn't
realize how arrogant I was before. :^)
-- Jeffrey Hobbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: 12 May 2000 12:30:42 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Perry Pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You re-design the email client. To do that you *innovate* to find a way to
> implement reasonable level of security with a minimal but finite cost to
> userfreindlyness. An email client is a entrance way by which foriegn data
> enters a system. You must put security there just as you must lock all of
> the doors and windows to your house. Why is is so hard for you to
> understand that??
An alternative is to arrange that each operation associated with a
particular content type has an optional extra flag that says whether
it can safely handle untrusted data. Then you can either have the
email client check these flags itself or update "start" to take an
extra flag to put it into untrusted mode. At a stroke you remove all
the problems (executing an untrusted script is clearly not safe, just
like running an untrusted binary or opening an untrusted Word
template) and yet you still let people work with many attachments
without problems. You can even get sophisticated and allow for
substitution of different running modes depending on whether the data
is trusted or not (e.g. opening a Word document/template but not
allowing any embedded macros to be run at all.) And the core level of
functionality *isn't* hard to add (sandbox technology is more complex,
but you can make that something that is only optionally available,
with the defaults otherwise being slanted towards security.)
Doing this sort of thing would kill (the majority of) email viruses
stone dead (or at least slow them down enough that standard anti-virus
channels could cope with them) along with many other forms of
malicious content. And it would integrate with the GUI nicely. You
could even mark the restricted operations on the right-click menu as
being insecure or running at a controlled level of security (the
former possibly by making the entry unselectable?)
That it is easy (even obvious) to do but no effort has been made by MS
to do it would seem to me to be something of an indictment of their
priorities w.r.t their customers...
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- I may seem more arrogant, but I think that's just because you didn't
realize how arrogant I was before. :^)
-- Jeffrey Hobbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: 12 May 2000 12:47:06 GMT
In article <OIhS4.1088$ds3.1248@client>,
Nik Simpson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Didn't say otherwise. Just pointing out that the #! mechanism is no more
> foolproof than any other method of indetifying file types and can be
> perverted to do something that was not intended. As to what damage an
> interpretative language like VBS can do, no question it's powerful, but no
> more so than Perl and hence no more of a security risk in and of itself.
Except that putting "#!" at the start of a file doesn't make that file
into an executable script, and neither does fiddling with the name of
the file. Which is a major difference between 'Doze and Unix.
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- I may seem more arrogant, but I think that's just because you didn't
realize how arrogant I was before. :^)
-- Jeffrey Hobbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
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 13:00:58 GMT
Market pressure - generated by a standard and totally acceptable
product - ever heard of 'Nobody got sacked for buying IBM'
>Heaven knows, I don't like Microsoft, but even I will admit they did
>SOME good. Yes, the issue is one of hardware, but market pressure
>caused the standardization of the hardware, and nobody does market
>pressure like microsoft.
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 13:07:06 GMT
In article <gruR4.71$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[ snip ]
> No, the DLL is not loaded by the email client. What happens is that
the
> script name is passed to the shell. The shell then executes the
application
> registered for the file type of the script, in this case WSH. The
VBScript
> DLL is loaded into the context of WSH, not the email program.
If there were additional info passed to the shell describing the
source of the script, the DLL then could be clued in that a
'sandbox' was required.
This could be similar to MS's own concept of 'security zones'.
Linux already implements something of this nature if you aren't
running as root or another similarily priv'ed user, except
that it applies the 'zone' to the 'user', rather than the source
of the document/executable ;-)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How to properly process e-mail
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 13:29:16 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob S. Wolfram) writes:
> How about the responsibility of the MUA writers to make a clear
> distinction between data and executable content? With such a MUA the
> user can "open" /any/ attachment without fearing that something might
> possibly go wrong.
Well, there is that. Though I still think it is stupid to open
an attachement if you have no idea of what it is. But yes, MUA's should
work better than MS stuff does. I use Pine for my eMail and this never
becomes a problem.
--
Da Katt
[This space for rent]
------------------------------
From: "ax" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 13:29:48 GMT
"R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8fg81e$um$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> In 1996, Bill Gates was effectively imposing a "tax", collecting
> a substantial portion of revenue from every PC user. The PC
> had as much impact on trade and commerce in 1996 as ink and paper
> had in 1776. King George taxed ink and paper, and tea. At that
> time, ink and paper were essential to commerce, and tea was an
> occaision for conducting business.
At least Bill Gates was able to impose "tax". How Linux companies
are going to "tax"? Should "free" wonderland be "tax" free as well?
Linux companies are still in painful search of "sound business model".
Red Hat had switched from "software" company to "service" company,
and now it's switching from "service" company to "venture investment"
business. What's next? Wal-Mart? KFC? .....
> --
> Rex Ballard - Open Source Advocate, Internet
> I/T Architect, MIS Director
> http://www.open4success.com
> Linux - 60 million satisfied users worldwide
> and growing at over 1%/week!
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 13:22:54 GMT
In article <H6aS4.372$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> John Poltorak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In <8fa7e0$490$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Christopher Smith"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >Since people run around chanting "show us Microsoft's innovation"
but
> > >neglect to also chant "show us $SOMEOTHERCOMPANY's innovation".
> >
> > Here's a couple for starters:-
> >
> > IBM inventors of the IBM PC
> > IBM inventors of the Winchester disk drive
>
> Invention and innovation are two different things.
>
> Even so, the IBM PC was clearly an invention, but was it innovation?
It
> used almost entirely off the shelf components.
Irrelevant. Even the most innovative of _chips_ use standard gate
logic. Clearly the source of components won't disqualify a product
from being innovative :-)
2 cents
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 06:33:09 -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:
>
> 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.
Sorry but MS's FUD message did NOT refer to this.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How to properly process e-mail
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 13:31:43 GMT
"Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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.
Nope, that's the Pine equivalent.. And even then, not quite. For
example if in the eMail there is javascript, opening the mail, not the
attachment, in Outlook, Netscape mail and others of their ilk will run the
javascript, and the same with news articles. But in Pine, just opening the
eMail, or news article, for reading will not do this.
--
Da Katt
[This space for rent]
------------------------------
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 13:26:26 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>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.
It's not, but I answered this in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cheers,
Rob
--
Rob S. Wolfram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PGP 0x07606049 GPG 0xD61A655D
"[Windows NT] version 5.0 will build on a proven system architecture
and incorporate tens of thousands of bug fixes from version 4.0."
-- <http://www.microsoft.com/y2k.asp?A=7&B=5>
------------------------------
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 13:18:45 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Rob S. Wolfram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >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.
Is this what you mean?
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/psdk/shellcc/shell/Functions/ShellExecute.htm
That's an API that is /called/ by a shell. The point is exactly that
Outlook itself is functioning as a shell and thus bypassing
explorer.exe.
Cheers,
Rob
--
Rob S. Wolfram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PGP 0x07606049 GPG 0xD61A655D
Anyway the :// part is an 'emoticon' representing a man with a
strip of sticky tape across his mouth.
-- R. Douglas
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How to properly process e-mail
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 13:31:19 GMT
In article <8fg3hj$cj3$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8fe868$p18$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <8fdb70$t4g$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > If you "open" something that can execute code, it's very
dangerous.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > 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.
Opening jpegs, C files, zips, etc, launches programs on your system
that were installed by *you* and that you *know* (hopefully) are
safe. Exactly how does that compare to running unknown code from
an unknown source at the click of two buttons. You were right.
Launching unknown code is dangerous. What possible reason could
MS have for popping up a requester with two options that has only
one valid response?
> > 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.
Not even close. Sendmail can run code that you've determined to
be safe on data (the originator's email) while you're lounging on a
beach in the Virgin Islands. MS's feature requires the recipient to
be sitting at his workstation and click on a button that launches
software supplied by the sender. Get the distinction? Sendmail is
doing what you want it to do without requiring you to even be there.
Outlook (excuse me) visual basic is doing what the sender wants you
to do and you don't even know what that is.
> > 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.
And Bill Clinton didn't inhale. Totally irrelevant. I don't care
how MS does it, just that they do it.
> 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.
Such as delete files or any other bad thing that the sender can think
of. Tell me one good thing that the sender can do on your system
and how that would justify taking the obvious risk. Also, tell me
there's no other way to accomplish the same thing more securely.
>
> Opening a zip file from an attachment.
>
Nice try. Unfortunately, it doesn't apply. *Your* system runs
*your* WinZip on someone else's data.
Let me clarify: I have no problem with people clicking on jpegs,
gifs, text files, etc., and having their computer call up the proper
executable to look at the thing. I do, however, have serious problems
with the user double-clicking on an attachment and having a basic
interpreter launched (I don't care how) to do God knows what. When
I asked for one good thing, I meant it in that, and only that (i.e.
executing sender-supplied code), context.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 06:48:15 -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:
>
> 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.
Totally correct. Another poster scolded you for not telling the truth
and omitting facts that show you were not telling truth.
> 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."
There is no function or service here - this is a trivial.
> > 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)."
Proving the MS Windows code tested for brand, not compatibility. IBM
allows for the loading of other DOSs including DR DOS.
> > 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.
The memos showed MS ordered code to detect and then harm non MS brands
of software. The URL you refer to makes the same assertion.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 06:56:16 -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:
>
> Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > 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.
No Eric. You limited yourself to one citation.
> 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
Sorry Eric but you never listed any URL and owe me an apology for saying
I delted the URL.
> > 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.
You changed the topic Eric. Windows386 was useful and had useful
software so I corrected you. As for monopoly, MS-DOS Eric. MS
Leveraged their dos monopoly to establish Windows - a major charge in
the Cladera case - shame on you for making me keep you honest twice.
> > > > 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.
There was no URL in your post Eric. Lying does not irritate me - it
amuses me. You degrade yourself and are a good exmaple of the kind of
untrusthworthy behavior that forces MS to be split in half.
Also, a Windows product can ship soon after windows3.0 and be designed
for Windows 2.0. Folks shiped software for windows3.1 after win95 was
released.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
