Linux-Advocacy Digest #487, Volume #26 Sat, 13 May 00 09:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Dvorak calls Microsoft on 'innovation' ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Dvorak calls Microsoft on 'innovation' ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Why Solaris is better than Linux (david parsons)
Re: Things Linux can't do! (Jacques Guy)
Re: Things Linux can't do! (Full Name)
Re: Here is the solution (John Poltorak)
Re: Things Linux can't do! (Full Name)
What's the difference between.... (Jacques Guy)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Help->Colourised Login (Steve)
pre-kernels (Cihl)
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 ("Keith T. Williams")
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Erik Fuckingliar does it again ("Sam Morris")
Re: Erik Fuckingliar Strikes Again ("Sam Morris")
Re: That Pig Fuckinliar strikes again ("Sam Morris")
Re: More shit from Erik Fuckingliar ("Sam Morris")
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: German Govt says Microsoft a security risk (Matthias Warkus)
Re: Newbie loves Linux, but can't get samba to dance...... (Jim Morrissey)
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)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dvorak calls Microsoft on 'innovation'
Date: Sat, 13 May 2000 08:57:40 GMT
In article <8fh4i9$vse$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> There were a number of Unix systems available for the Vax line (as
well
> as VMS and OpenVMS). If I recall correctly, Digital itself supplied
> more than one variety of Unix --- Ultrix and Digital Unix (names may
> not be quite correct). One of the offerings was BSD based and another
> was based on OSF1. The current offering is True64 which is SUS V2
> compliant. I also know that Bell Labs ported one of the Berkley Unix
> variants (4.2 ?) to the Vax line way back when.
Ultrix was the only Unix available from DEC for VAX (and it was also
available for MIPS). I do not know what the currently supported Unix
for VAX is now.
OSF/1, DIGITAL Unix, and Tru64 are all the same product (but not the
same product as Ultrix), and it runs on Alpha. DEC's DECmigrate program
allowed users to migrate from Ultrix to this product.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dvorak calls Microsoft on 'innovation'
Date: Sat, 13 May 2000 09:13:54 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Gary Connors <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ohhh. I think Tim Berners-Lee would disagree with you, you
revisionist
> historian. He wrote the first WebBrowser on NextStep.
Of course, I said "first widespread browser". Berners-Lee's browser was
not widely available, and is not in use today. Lynx, which was
developed originally on VMS and later ported to Unix, was the first
widely available web browser. Unix normally plays catch-up with the
other systems for the newest technology, and the web is no exception.
> 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!
What you have to keep in mind is that Linux is not designed for high
uptimes, so this is an unfair comparison. Linux is developed under
the "bazaar" model of develeopment which requires that developers
release software before verifying its correctness. In order to maintain
a stable Linux system you have to constantly apply patches, analyze
kernel panics and core dumps, and reboot the system. It is OK for
casual home use, but not for installations where reliability is
required.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (david parsons)
Subject: Re: Why Solaris is better than Linux
Date: 13 May 2000 01:55:26 -0700
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Full Name <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Solaris on Sun hardware works.
>
>Linux on Intel hardware doesn't.
>
>Is there a need to say any more?
Umm, yes.
Perhaps you'd better start with your definition of ``works'', since I
suspect it will be an exotic new definition that not very many of the
english-speakers reading this newsgroup will be at all familiar with.
____
david parsons \bi/ My solaris boxes are dumped in the spare computers bin.
\/
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 13 May 2000 10:14:08 -0700
From: Jacques Guy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Sam wrote:
> Lets say the "Cancer cure" is sticking a Pineapple up your arse,
> painful but effective, This would be the Linux version, cost minimal.
Beg pardon? I stuck the OpenLinux Caldera CD up my... what you
would call arse I suppose, answered a few questions (tick-a-box),
spent 20 minutes playing Tetris while Caldera was installing
Linux, and bingo! Cost? Ah yes, AUD19.95 (about 8 pounds), for
which I got a choice of 3 Linux's (Slackware, Red Hat, Caldera).
>Lets say someone (MS) develops a different cure, and charges you $100
>for a Pineapple fruit juice in a convenient go anywhere pack with a
>drinking straw.
You want to sell me a straw for $100?
Play it again, Sam.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Full Name)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Date: Sat, 13 May 2000 10:15:10 GMT
On Sat, 13 May 2000 18:51:33 +1000, Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>OK, I can play this game.
>
>Let me give you a better example.
>
>Lets say the "Cancer cure" is sticking a Pineapple up your arse,
>painful but effective, This would be the Linux version, cost minimal.
>
>Lets say someone (MS) develops a different cure, and charges you $100
>for a Pineapple fruit juice in a convenient go anywhere pack with a
>drinking straw.
>
>Which would you choose ?
>
>Sam
>
>
LOL!!
We decided to put Linux on a Dell notebook about a month ago. It's
still not networked. The local Linux experts have ordered another
PCMCIA net card for it. The funny thing is that the supplied card was
specifically chosen to be Linux friendly.
I must admit, when I see them hunched over the notebook typing away at
the keyboard trying to get the thing work they do have expressions on
their faces like they have pineapples up their arses.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Poltorak)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Here is the solution
Date: 13 May 2000 10:17:04 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Poltorak)
In <391bdcf3$2$yrgbherq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
>
>>That said, nobody has been able to provide the requested proof.
>
>
>How much does gates pay you to be here ?
>
The really sad thing is, Erik actually *believes* that Microsoft is
a squeaky clean company which doesn't have a dirty tricks dept.
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>-----------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
--
John
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Full Name)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Date: Sat, 13 May 2000 10:20:21 GMT
On Fri, 12 May 2000 22:53:36 +0100, "Red Hat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>> Linux just needs humans, a small group of humans, to survive.
>>
>...and somebody to feed them.
>
As long as there is a social security system Linux will survive.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 13 May 2000 10:20:44 -0700
From: Jacques Guy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: What's the difference between....
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy and comp.os.linux.advocacy?
Answer below (don't cheat! try and figure it out first)
Same as between
alt.fan.bill-gates and alt.fan.noam-chomsky
(You have to visit them to see: the fans hate
Gates, they love Chomsky)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([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
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 13 May 2000 10:38:27 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch? ([EMAIL PROTECTED]?) wrote (Fri, 12 May 2000 22:06:34 -0500):
>It's highly unlikely that any non-DOS would conform to unpublished data
>structures unless they had reverse engineered the code and committed a
>copyright violation.
At the time, 'reverse-engineering' in the States was perfectly legal. It
was done all the time. What was illegal was copying the code exactly and
implementing that code (obvioious, a copyright boo-boo). Phoenix made their
PC BIOS this way (R-E). I don't know what the R-E status is now (except for
Virginia, where I hear they burn you at the stake), but at the time, R-E
was very common. And, you can bet Microsoft R-E'ed DR-DOS to find out -HOW-
they could make it so DR-DOS looks incompatible (not that that was hard to
do -- but then these reasons (internal APIs documented only for MS's use)
are why MS is where they are today -- about to be split in two). So, for
more, see Pot v. Kettle.
'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`''`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`''`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`
Corne1 Huth 40th Floor - Software Win|CE|Linux|Warp|+ http://40th.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steve)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Help->Colourised Login
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 13 May 2000 11:45:41 GMT
On Sat, 13 May 2000 11:49:50 +0800, Jackie wrote:
>Hi there, I know BLUE="$ESC[44;37m" and NORMAL="$ESC[40;37m". But how about
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
These two that you know have something in common don't they, they both have
a number which is slightly different, experiment and discover.
--
Cheers
Steve email mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
%HAV-A-NICEDAY Error not enough coffee 0 pps.
web http://www.ndirect.co.uk/~sjlen/
or http://start.at/zero-pps
10:08am up 16 days, 12:09, 4 users, load average: 1.36, 1.13, 1.03
------------------------------
From: Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: pre-kernels
Date: Sat, 13 May 2000 10:50:00 GMT
Just wandered over to kernel.org, and saw that the pre-kernels
are down to version -eight- already.
Looks like the development cycle has been speeding up lately. I
think the kernel-developers want to get kernel 2.4 out as soon as
possible.
I sure hope they're not rushing things too much. More rapid
development would surely benefit Linux as a whole, but i don't
think anybody would want an unstable kernel as a side-effect of
that. Most of us already had our share of unstable OS's at some
time.
Any thoughts?
------------------------------
From: "Keith T. Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.lang.basic
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: Sat, 13 May 2000 08:08:25 -0400
Bob May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> The 3.5" standard came about by IBM, not Microsoft with thier new PS/2
> systems. They forced the 1.2M standard on us with the PC/AT model.
> IBM has also placed all of the standards concerning the early display
> standards (CGA, MGA, EGA, VGA, 8414, etc.) which have been extended
> (not replaced) to the resolutions that we have now as well as the
> external interface standards and the interrupt and memory model
> standards. The reason that they worked so well was that the Tiawan
> shops decided to make them like popcorn and the only way you can make
> them like popcorn is to have standards of operation. The standards
> got so strong that the PS/2 line never got picked up by anybody
> because the PC standard just kept rolling along stronger than ever.
> Microsoft had nothing to do with the new standards other than to write
> the code to make them go.
>
One of the major reasons that the MCA (aka ps/2) line didn't take off was
that IBM controlled and licsensed it to manufacturers for a fee, unlike the
ISA architecture which was free and open (remember EISA, which sort of still
exists?)
>From an architecural standpoint MCA was a much better system, way faster,
and you didn't have to figure out what resources (IRQs, IO Ports etc) were
needed since it was included in the definition file (just don't loose the
install disk, no internet for fast download then!)
I ran O/S 2v2 (and maybe V1 as well) on a PS/2 model 55 in the late 80's
which, as I recall was either 286 or an early 386 and used communications
manager (token-ring shop, also heavy license fees) and database manager as
well, although most of our users were using DOS and WP (4.2 initially, 5.1
when it came out)
Keith.
> --
> 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: "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: Sat, 13 May 2000 07:23:27 -0500
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Erik Funkenbusch? ([EMAIL PROTECTED]?) wrote (Fri, 12 May 2000
22:06:34 -0500):
> >It's highly unlikely that any non-DOS would conform to unpublished data
> >structures unless they had reverse engineered the code and committed a
> >copyright violation.
>
> At the time, 'reverse-engineering' in the States was perfectly legal. It
> was done all the time. What was illegal was copying the code exactly and
> implementing that code (obvioious, a copyright boo-boo).
That's the point really, to recreate such an internal data structure, they'd
have to copy at least some of the code exactly.
> Phoenix made their
> PC BIOS this way (R-E). I don't know what the R-E status is now (except
for
> Virginia, where I hear they burn you at the stake), but at the time, R-E
> was very common. And, you can bet Microsoft R-E'ed DR-DOS to find
out -HOW-
> they could make it so DR-DOS looks incompatible (not that that was hard to
> do -- but then these reasons (internal APIs documented only for MS's use)
> are why MS is where they are today -- about to be split in two). So, for
> more, see Pot v. Kettle.
We're not talking about internal API's per se (although they were used
here), the actual entries checked were internal data structures which were
accessed from the API. I think it's perfectly legitimate for DOS to have
undocumented API's if they do nothing but access internal data that 3rd
party programs should not be accessing.
------------------------------
From: "Sam Morris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Erik Fuckingliar does it again
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 17:46:32 +0100
> > I know of no Microsoft applications that make use of that API other than
> > through other API's like MAPI.
>
> You know absolutely nothing, you product of a dirty test tube and a
> diseased pig.
I see that bomb I mailed Bob hasn't yet arrived :(
--
Sam Morris
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Sam Morris" <[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 17:48:10 +0100
> You continue to cross post into comp.os.os2.advocacy where you are most
> unwelcome. Therefore, you are forever known as Erik Fuckingliar.
Repeating yourself Bob?
--
Sam Morris
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Sam Morris" <[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 17:53:35 +0100
> DO you have any proof you exist?
You erroneously presuppose the existence of Erik. Do you have any proof that
YOU exist?
Perhaps something equally irrelevant will serve to fill up this post:
"The Earth is the only planet in the solar system to contain large
quantities of free water"
--
Sam Morris
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Sam Morris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: More shit from Erik Fuckingliar
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 17:54:05 +0100
> More of your crap.
Ditto.
--
Sam Morris
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([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
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 13 May 2000 12:34:21 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch? ([EMAIL PROTECTED]?) wrote (Sat, 13 May 2000 07:23:27 -0500):
>That's the point really, to recreate such an internal data structure, they'd
>have to copy at least some of the code exactly.
Nope -- at least, you've provided no support for that claim.
>undocumented API's if they do nothing but access internal data that 3rd
>party programs should not be accessing.
Data cannot be copyrighted (not sure if you were saying that, but anyway,
there it is). Same goes for data structures -- can't copyright it.
'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`''`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`''`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`
Corne1 Huth 40th Floor - Software Win|CE|Linux|Warp|+ http://40th.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: German Govt says Microsoft a security risk
Date: Sat, 13 May 2000 13:01:46 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Fri, 12 May 2000 14:47:43 -0700...
...and Salvador Peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matthias Warkus wrote:
> >
> > It was the Fri, 12 May 2000 10:03:17 -0700...
> > ...and Salvador Peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > And btw, Scientology's desperate and tasteless propaganda efforts in this
> > > > > matter seem to underline what critics accuse them of,
> > >
> > > What propaganda? The German government apparently won't do business
> > > with any company that is in any way linked to scientology. That is
> > > discrimination.
> >
> > No, that is self-protection, because Scientology's practices clash
> > with the German constitution.
>
> How?
For one, Scientology collects and stores enormous amounts of private
data about its members. Unfortunately, nothing can be done about this,
because they store it on paper and not electronically. Electronic
storage would violate our data protection / electronic privacy laws.
(Germany was the first country in the world to pass data protection
legislation.)
The values and ideals held up by Scientology aren't exactly compliant
with the German constitution either.
mawa
--
Favourites - share and enjoy: <URL: http://www.enlightenment.org>
<URL: http://www.userfriendly.org> <URL: http://www.gnome.org>
<URL: http://freshmeat.net> <URL: http://www.calvinandhobbes.com>
<URL: http://www.metager.de> <URL: http://www.happypenguin.org>
------------------------------
From: Jim Morrissey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Newbie loves Linux, but can't get samba to dance......
Date: Sat, 13 May 2000 12:43:14 GMT
There is an excellent book called Using Samba(O'Reilly book). It
explains all in great detail...yet is easy to read and learn from (not
boring). Most of the stuff in the config file doesn't need changing to
use. I suggest you use the SWAT web tool (should have been installed
with the SAMBA rpm. Just point your web browser at
http://localhost:901, and log in as root. Thuis tool makes
configuration a snap.
-Jim
snowball wrote:
>
> I started redhat6.2 last week, installation was pretty easy.. KDE looks
> nice.. 4 desktop windows ---> great!... But problem comes with this
> "samba" : although I don't have to download it from the web(it's part
> of the redhat cd); installation looks like ok(KDE program did the job
> for me); I restart the computer and check the smbstatus, it said "
> no path for the service ....) IT'S NOT WORKING! Maybe I have to edit my
> smb.conf? but it's a huge file.. I don't know what should be added or
> edited!! Any help? TIA TIA TIA
>
> * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
> The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob S. Wolfram)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How to properly process e-mail
Date: 13 May 2000 07:27:35 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Rob S. Wolfram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> 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.
>
>No, it's an API that calls *INTO* the shell.
>
>Please note the header and import libraries needed to call this function.
>.
> Header: Declared in shellapi.h.
> Import Library: shell32.lib.
That's an implementation detail (/of course/ they reuse the already
written code to do this, they'd be crazy to re-implement everything).
Still, every OS course that looks past a single implemented OS will tell
you that a shell is a functionality that takes user input (be it a CLI,
GUI or voice) and translates that to other functionalities provided by
the OS (spawn application A with datafile B, delete file C, move to
directory/library/context D etc.).
Determining that you want to "open" the attachment when you double-click
on it, is done by Outlook. It then calls an OS API to handle that
(ShellExecute), so Outlook /itself/ is acting as a shell. *That*'s what
I mean with bypassing the shell.
BTW, I quoted "open", because here it is ment in the Windows
terminology. The meaning of "open" in Windows' terminology can be found in
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/psdk/shellcc/shell/Shell_basics/Launch.htm:
Open Launches an application. If the file is not executable, it
launches the file's associated application.
The lack of determinism here is exactly what makes something like an
Email worm possible in the first place. Joe Sixpack uses a Mail User
Agent (in fact a mail reader) to read his mail. Part of that mail is in
a format that cannot be read as text (an image, a movie, a soundfile),
so the mailreader is calling the help of another application to open
(read/view/hear etc) the data. How can you expect from him that the same
context and the same action will *execute* data, moreover, data of which
he cannot trust the origin?
To finalise my point, let me quote a piece from appendic G from RFC1341
from June 1992 (which is now obsoleted by RFC2045-2049):
Appendix G -- Summary of the Seven Content-types
[snip]
Content-type: application
Subtypes defined by this document: octet-stream,
postscript, oda
Important Parameters: profile
Encoding notes: base64 generally preferred for octet-stream
or other unreadable subtypes.
Security considerations: This type is intended for the
transmission of data to be interpreted by locally-installed
programs. If used, for example, to transmit executable
binary programs or programs in general-purpose interpreted
languages, such as LISP programs or shell scripts, severe
security problems could result. In general, authors of
mail-reading agents are cautioned against giving their
systems the power to execute mail-based application data
without carefully considering the security implications.
While it is certainly possible to define safe application
formats and even safe interpreters for unsafe formats, each
interpreter should be evaluated separately for possible
security problems.
I hope this sufficiently clarifies my points.
Cheers,
Rob
--
Rob S. Wolfram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PGP 0x07606049 GPG 0xD61A655D
Q: How many Microsoft engineers does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
A: None. They just declare darkness the new industry standard.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob S. Wolfram)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How to properly process e-mail
Date: 13 May 2000 11:34:39 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Christopher Smith <[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.
>
>Outlook passes off to the same API that explorer uses when you double click
>a file in explorer.
Exactly. So the shell functionality is done by Outlook, not by explorer.
So outlook /does/ bypass the shell by acting as a shell itself.
>The result of this is determined by settings in the
>shell. THe end result is the same as if Outlook handed the file off to the
>shell (ie you get whatever would happen if the attachment was double clicked
>from explorer).
No. Lookup the documentation for ShellExecute() on MSDN. It is determined
by the second argument for ShellExecute() and has certain defaults if
this argument is NULL (primary default is "open", which means launch the
application, or if it is not executable, launch the application that the
file is associated with).
>> Fact.
>
>Semantics.
No, fact. Go read the Dinosaur book, chapter 3.1.8 and educate yourself
on what a shell really is.
Cheers,
Rob
--
Rob S. Wolfram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PGP 0x07606049 GPG 0xD61A655D
Hackers make things, crackers break things.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob S. Wolfram)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How to properly process e-mail
Date: 13 May 2000 12:06:09 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Rob S. Wolfram" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >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?
>
>Because Outlook is doing exactly the latter. It's handing off a document to
>the associated program, just as you would when piping to some other program
>under Unix.
When I pipe email content to a program I either choose the program
myself or the MUA chooses the proper application on the basis of the
mailcap file. But, contrary to Microsoft's developers, the Unix
developers *do* read RFC's, and the security warnings that were issued
back in '92 when the first MIME RFC's were issued, were taken into
account by Unix developers.
Still, your statement above is false, because Outlook /does/ execute
email content. It calls ShellExecute() which will "open" the file,
meaning that either it is launched (if it is executable, and this
happens when you double-click on a .exe attachment) or the application
that it is associated with is launched. This decision is made by
ShellExecute().
>> 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..
>
>However, the user must still perform a conscious and deliberate action to
>make it happen.
>
>It is not, by a far cry, automatic.
The "conscious and deliberate" action from the user needs to be made for
/every/ attachment that the user thinks (s)he will /view/. They are,
afterall, using a *mail reader*, not a shell, right?
>> 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.
>
>The action performed is determined by settings in the shell. That was my
>point.
Still, ShellExecute() is called by Outlook, not by Explorer, and that is
*my* point.
>> 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.
>
>From Outlook's perspective, there is no difference. All Outlook knows is
>the user wants to "activate" an attachment, so it hands off to something
>else to perform the default action for that filetype
Exactly. This is what Borenstein and Freed explicitly warned for back in
1992. Then again, who still expects the Redmond developers to read RFCs?
>(which is what it _should_ do).
I BEG to disagree, thankyouverymuch.
Cheers,
Rob
--
Rob S. Wolfram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PGP 0x07606049 GPG 0xD61A655D
OHNOSECOND(n): Time between pressing Enter and realizing you did
something terribly and irrevocably wrong.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
