Linux-Advocacy Digest #168, Volume #30 Fri, 10 Nov 00 23:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Christopher Smith")
Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays. ("Bruce Schuck")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays. (Curtis)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Bruce Schuck")
Re: OS stability (sfcybear)
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum ("Les Mikesell")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum ("Les Mikesell")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Curtis)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Curtis)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Keith Edward O'Hara)
Re: so REALLY, what's the matter with Microsoft? ("Bruce Schuck")
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum ("Les Mikesell")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 13:01:36 +1000
"Curtis" <alliem@kas*spam*net.com> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Christopher Smith wrote...
> > > No, it is only hidden in Outlook.
> >
> > Not at all. Extensions, filenames, icons, save to disk and check
yourself.
>
> I personally don't use Outlook but for other reasons. Windows has the
> incredibly brain dead feature which I immediately turn off when I get my
> hands on any Windows system and that is to make filename extensions
> invisible.
Most people I know who have never used computers quite like this. OTOH,
those who have used computers hate it.
> Isn't this part of the problem? I don't know if this setting
> affects how Outlook displays it's attachments because if it does and is
> enabled, the user will not be able to tell what type of file it is.
If they're used to not having extensions, then they'll look at the icon.
------------------------------
From: "Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays.
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 19:08:16 -0800
"Curtis" <alliem@kas*spam*net.com> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chad Myers wrote...
> > Ah yes, let the infamous Craig Kelley ad homonym attacks begin...
> >
> > OS/2's UI sucked, it's a fact. Even KDE's UI is much better. Of course,
> > KDE's UI is a direct copy of Windows, so I guess Windows is better too.
> >
> > Windows has better navigation, presentation, options, features,
> > customizability, consistency, among many others over OS/2.
>
> After saying all that, the burning question arises. Have you ever, EVER,
> used OS/2 Warp? The only part that I'll concede with superiority of
> customisability is with the colour scheming and the icon sizes. Windows'
> anti-aliasing is also a great plus in Windows' favour.
>
> However, I'm running Win2k pro here and I'd love to make my default
> folder view be in list mode rather than icon view. For the life of me, I
> can't find a way to do that.
Setup your folder the way you want it and then:
Tools
Folder Options
View (Tab)
Like Current Folder (button)
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 05:06:11 +0200
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:ge2P5.18348$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >I have two open folders on my desktop. Each of them is a folder I found
> > >somewhere which can be opened just by clicking on it.
> > >I drag and drop an Icon from one folder to the other.
> > >
> > >Now please tell me if the effect will be:
> > >Copy to destination folder
> > >Move to destination folder
> > >Create a link on the destination folder
> >
> > You forgot:
> >
> > Blue Screen O' Death.
> >
> > Lock destination window with "copying progress" dialog box, then hang.
>
> Another good one is when you wiggle and release the mouse and it
> duplicates the entire tree with 'copy of xxxx' files. I once had a user
> do that to a web server directory samba-mounted from a unix machine
> for convenience. Nothing like user-friendliness...
You need to do a little more than just wiggle your mouse, but I agree that
this thing sucks.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,alt.linux.sucks
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 05:05:07 +0200
"Curtis" <alliem@kas*spam*net.com> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> A very important point. Another is that average users like to know that
> their friend around the corner is using the same OS so that they can help
> each other. When I bought my Mom her computer, she expressly refused a
> Mac for this reason, even after telling her that many find it easier to
> use than Windows.
>
>
> My sister, a lawyer, gets upset when I make basic changes to her system.
> She would certainly flip her lid to the prospect of a different user
> interface. Her usual comment would be, "It took me some time to get used
> to the present setup. Why are you interfering with it?"
>
> You see, part of the problem with a lot of us comp
> (experts|hobbyists|professionals) trying to understand the average user
> who does most other things than tinker and show above average interest in
> their computers and how they can get them to work better, is that we fail
> to be able to really understand how they think. One problem I had with my
> mother when she taught me how to drive was that she always assumed that
> my abilities could not exceed hers. IOW's if she cannot do a particular
> manoeuvre, then I couldn't. If she took a long time to master an ability
> then I shouldn't be able to learn it in a snap. It's the same thing I'm
> seeing here. If I see the problems with Windows, and furthermore make the
> necessary effort to learn an alternative and install it, then the average
> user will or should show a similar interest. If they don't then they're
> just lemmings or a conspiracy theory is formulated as the cause of the
> Windows dominance. MS became a monopoly because they know how people
> think. I do agree that since becoming a monopoly, they have exercised
> some strong arm tactics to further their monopoly. However, to me, just
> as how Stephen King will today write shit, and it still becomes a best
> seller, the Windows user base will continue to expand despite any great
> effort on MS's part.
It's called Blind Spot.
Most people have tihs for something in their life.
I once wrote a VBS file to change the position of the taskbar.
Roughly 60% of those who tried it were greatly annoyed at this, as they "had
to relearn windows" as one of them put it.
I'm thinking that this is a good way to check the users of the computers
that one administer, mail them to all those computers.
Everyone that will call you for support should be on "suspects list" and you
should include them in any basic computer course that you can, as well as
lecturing them about basuc security.
Using a lot of scary words "lose of all you data" - "your sole
responsibality" - "lose of a lot of money" - "formatting the hard disk" and
the like helps making them remember the lecture.
"Coming off *your* paycheck" is a surefire way to do it.
For the "You can change *everything* {if you know how}" - people, here is a
tidbit, a lot of people don't even bother to change their color settings.
That is how much Joe User want to be able to customize his workstation.
------------------------------
From: Curtis <alliem@kas*spam*net.com>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays.
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 22:08:56 -0500
Ayende Rahien wrote...
> > However, I'm running Win2k pro here and I'd love to make my default
> > folder view be in list mode rather than icon view. For the life of me, I
> > can't find a way to do that. In OS/2 I could do that via any folders
> > settings. IOW's OS/2's WPS was more easily customised and more
> > thoughtfully put together than Windows explorer. What OS/2's WPS suffered
> > from was a lack of attention to style and glitz which does a lot for
> > selling the product to those who use it at a shallow level or to those
> > who can need to see glitz and then features.
>
> All you've to do is to ask.
> Open my computer.
> Tools>Folder Options...>View
> Unselect "Remember each folder's view setting"
> Click Okay.
> Right click on an empty surface, View>List
>
> You are done.
I knew about this, but I have effectively lost the ability to customise
some folder views differently.
> Of course, you might some of their folders to act differently from other
> folders.
I see you preempted my problem. :-)
> Here is how to do it and still get List file view.
>
> Open my computer.
> Right click on an empty surface, View>List
> Tools>Folder Options...>View
> Click on "Like Current Folder"
> Make sure that "Remember each folder's view setting" is selected.
> Click Okay.
>
> This way, all your folders are now configured to show you their files in
> List view.
> But you can still sutomize it if you need.
Interesting. I'll try that. :-)
Now in OS/2, I would simply make the view the default. I can than then
set another folders view by selecting to confine the folder view to that
particular folder only.
It's possible to create a similar effect with explorer but not as easily.
--
ACM.
________________________________________________________
"A thing is not necessarily true because a man dies for it."
------------------------------
From: "Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 19:10:57 -0800
"Curtis" <alliem@kas*spam*net.com> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ayende Rahien wrote...
> >
> > "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Christopher Smith wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Sam Morris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message
> > > > news:uGCN5.9$y94.1043@stones...
> > > > > > On *nix systems, virii are inhibited because a user is running
in
> > his /
> > > > > > her own space, so that downloaded files are isolated, even if
run.
> > > > > > These programs are never given access to any executable on which
the
> > > > > > machine depends. On *nix systems, "virus" is something of an
> > > > > > anachronism.
> > > > >
> > > > > As it should be. Fortunately, exactly the same thing happens when
> > running
> > > > > Windows 2000 (and possibly NT4 if you're using NTFS).
> > > >
> > > > Certainly NT4 (and every other version of NT).
> > >
> > > And is Microsoft pushing this for home users?
> >
> > If a user have a trouble with 9x, he wouldn't be able to handle NT.
>
> He'd certainly be able to handle Win2k which is now Plug and Play which
> gets rid of one of the main problems with Win2k usability for a home
> user.
>
> The only problem with Win2k for a home user is the limited game support
> and hardware support. Usability should no longer be an issue.
And it looks like Whistler will fix the first two problems.
>
> > And BTW, MS does push it to the home users, next version of windows, 9x
will
> > *die*.
>
> Exactly. :-) The only factors keeping Win2k from already taking this role
> is as I stated above .... as well as the prohibitive cost per license.
And it looks like Whistler (Consumer version) will only cost $10 more than
Windows Me.
------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS stability
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 03:00:55 GMT
In article <8S0P5.7606$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Mig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8uhlio$cim$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > > "Mig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > Come on Eric. There is no way around the facts presented by
Netcraft
> > > > and
> > > > "sfbear". If those Linux boxes where insecure then they would
have
> been
> > > > cracked long time ago and identified as cracked.
> > >
> > > Wow, so you're saying that simply because a system hasn't been
cracked,
> > > it's
> > > secure? Wow. I'll rush off and tell all the security experts.
> >
> > No, im not saying that. Im saying that if a box is insecure then it
gets
> > cracked some day not matter what OS its on.
> >
> > Youre just claiming that so old a Linux is insecure and i say that
its
> > nonsensic to say that. There are not many remote root exploits in
the
> > kernel that i know off, in fact i dont know anyh but maybe you know
and
> > could name some?
>
> Security doesn't refer simply to root exploits. For instance, one
could
> consider DoS vulnerabilities as security risks (or at the very least
> reliability risks). There are several TCP vulnerabilities in kernels
that
> are less older than 6 months.
Yes? List a few. I now that anouther of the "they must have security
holes" Attached link pointing to Redhat security bugs and the ONLY bug
that required that the kernel be pached REQUIRED sendmail If the
sendmail was not on the sytem, then the kernel bug could not be
exploited! Many web servers DO NOT have sendmail installed so it would
not be an issue.
>
> > > Right. The first Microsoft crack had nothing to do with the OS.
It was
> > > an
> > > unsecure home system which an employee used to access the VPN. It
was
> > > poor security policy and nothing relating to the OS itself.
> >
> > Correct, but this also says a lot about the mentality of the people
that
> > "produce" security on Windows. Its not only the admins but also the
> > programmers/developers that are on the same net.
>
> The people that lock down security at MS are not the same people that
> implement security.
so what.
>
> > > The second one was an old machine that had not been patched
because it
> was
> > > considered in retirement. It should have been removed from the
network
> > > completely, but it wasn't.
> > >
> > > Here's another thing to think about. In any large shop, similar
to
> > > microsoft.com, don't you think they do regular maintenance? If I
ran
> such
> > > a shop, i'd rotate every server out of the loop every 60 days and
> subject
> > > it to a battery of diagnostics and replace any hardware which
shows even
> > > the slightest sign of failing.
> >
> > The its amazing that only Windows shops seem to do that. Heavy
volume
> sites
> > normally run on Solaris with Netscape servers or Apache. Why dont
they do
> > the same thing then?
>
> Because they wait for the machine to fail, then they lose millions of
> dollars due to site unavailability. Ask ebay about single server
failures.
>
That is bad planing not a result of a server being able to stay up for a
long time. A single server W2K setup would have the same issues. Still I
would rather have a system that can stay up for a year without being
shut down backed up by anouther system that can stay up for a full year
without being shut down, that have a server that is constanly being shut
down for mantanaince being backed up by another machine that constanly
being shut down for maintainace. Be cause when you have the one server
shut down for mantanance the other is a SINGLE SERVER! And you want to
shut down each of these machines every 2 months for how long?
> > Face it Erik. Windows is not suited for the Internet. Its a
miniscule
> > platform.; the data presented is proof that its unstable, recent
events
> > that its insecure, and we all know that its expensive.
>
> Don't you get whiplash by flipping your argument around so easily?
Just a
> second ago you agreed that the hacks at MS were not related to the OS,
now
> here you are claiming they are. Which is it?
>
> For an OS that's not suited for the Internet, it sure seems to run
lots of
> major sites.
>
> > There is no way around it Erik. We can slap your faces with uptime
date
> for
> > at least the next few years :-)
>
> Uptime in a clustered environment is meaningless. Hell, uptime is in
and of
> itself meaningless without statistics on planned downtime.
>
> > Windows is easilly beatten in a server enviroment by a bunch of
amateurs
> > playing with Linux and the BSD's.
>
> I guess that depends on your priorities. If keeping your system up
24x7 no
> matter what the cost is more important than 100% availability then
sure.
> The only way you're going to guarantee 100% availability is by doing
routine
> maintenance.
The only way you are going to have 100% availblity is having reliable
RELIABKLE systems that are NOT down every couple of months, backing up
other RELIABLE systems that are NOT down every couple of months!
Taking that server down for mantinance means that it is NOT AVAILABLE!
The servers that are running for YEARS have been available all that
time! That means that they only need a single backup incase of failure
and not have to have 2 backups, one to provide backup services in case
you have a failure while you are constanly doing maintenance on your
machines.
>
> You don't run a fleet of vehicles without taking them out of service
every
> so often for oil changes and tuneups. You don't run a massive website
> without doing the same.
>
> > Only thing that surprises me with uptime data is that Free-/Net
> > -/Open-BSD's do not do as good as Linux.
>
> No, it's probably just more likely that people that run those OS's are
more
> concerned with security and maintenance than the people running a 3
year old
> Linux system.
That have NOT been hacked and have not had to be constantly serviced Boy
that makes the Linux look REAL good!
Bottom line franky, you have no proof rottating servers for maintanace
is the reason for the lousy record of NT and w2k, Infact, the barns and
noble record and the zenith record seem to point to the instability. I
doubt barns and noble was taking rotating out their servers every day
for 5 months for HARDWARE work!
Thanks for the great laugh! I always enjoy laughing AT YOU!
Keep it up franky, you are the best thing to happen to Linux in this
news group!
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 03:10:13 GMT
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:FYJO5.2465$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> You can't have an enterprise-ready application with a faulty and
> half-baked file system (ext2). Even the MS you consider to be so
> inferior knows this.
Ext2 has no more problems that NTFS - less if you ever let an
NTFS fill with tiny files.
> According to people in your camp, ReiserFS is the answer, but according
> to you and several others, it's still in development and it doesn't
> appear that anyone is staking their job or their credibility on it.
NT has been under development for years. Have you warned
people away from using it?
> If you were setting up an enterprise system with thousands of desktops
> running a piece of software that they all depended upon. Downtime is
> measured in minutes costing thousands of dollars per each downtime unit.
> Would you trust Linux and ReiserFS to it?
> The possible answers are:
> "Yes"
> "No"
> "I wouldn't use Linux in that scenario"
How about: I've never seen an NT box stay up a year doing any
kind of work'. That's enough of an answer for me.
> In any case, Linux isn't "enterprise ready" or "enterprise class" as
> Red Hat declares on their site.
>
> I never want to hear another jab at MS for "false marketing" or
> "misleading statements", etc.
Care to dig up some of their early/mid 90's claims and verify
how many of the things they said would work actually did?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 05:10:04 +0200
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9q2P5.18355$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Curtis" <alliem@kas*spam*net.com> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > Be that as it may, Outlook is not the problem with machines getting
> > infected with viruses contracted via e-mail. The problem lies between
> > chair and keyboard. IGNORANCE, STUPIDITY, COMPLACENCY. You name it.
>
> But the point of having the computer is so you can do even less. If the
> computer ever makes things more difficult for you, get rid of it.
Did you just advocated windows & outlook?
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 05:11:44 +0200
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:wm2P5.18354$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Guess what? On unix programs don't execute unless you make them
> executable. Somewhere not very far down this road, the user is
> going to realize that they have a program, not a greeting card on
> their hands.
You are *way* overestimating Joe User.
*Way* too much.
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 03:15:36 GMT
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:vWVO5.2849$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > Even with access to a filesystem
> > that can make one file larger than 2GB, oracle setup guides *still*
> > reccomend that you use some raw partitions for oracle, for PERFORMANCE.
>
> Of course they do because ext2's performance sucks. However, on NT,
> NTFS is much better and so such a recommendation is uncessary.
Good filesystems perform read-ahead buffering to optimize access to
normal files. This normally is counterproductive for databases where
the order of reads does not follow the pattern of typical files. If NTFS
is good for databases, that probably means it is not good for normal
file access.
> Tell us, how do you get a database file larger than 2GB with Oracle on
> Linux?
Postgres has no trouble spreading a database over multiple files. I would
expect Oracle to be able to do the same.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Curtis <alliem@kas*spam*net.com>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 22:16:21 -0500
Les Mikesell wrote...
>
> "Curtis" <alliem@kas*spam*net.com> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > Be that as it may, Outlook is not the problem with machines getting
> > infected with viruses contracted via e-mail. The problem lies between
> > chair and keyboard. IGNORANCE, STUPIDITY, COMPLACENCY. You name it.
>
> But the point of having the computer is so you can do even less. If the
> computer ever makes things more difficult for you, get rid of it.
You simply cannot use a computer effectively and safely without first
learning how to use it.
If you wish to travel a ten mile distance quickly, you drive instead of
walk. You have to learn to drive to make use of the advantage of having a
car. Once you learn how to drive, a car makes life easier for you. In
fact this is a simple generality of life in that you have to learn to use
the tools that make life easier for you. Why should computers, such
complex machinery, be an exception?
In this hostile world of people sending viruses and trojans around to
vandalize others computers, you simply have to LEARN how to keep yourself
protected.
--
ACM.
________________________________________________________
"A thing is not necessarily true because a man dies for it."
------------------------------
From: Curtis <alliem@kas*spam*net.com>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 22:18:34 -0500
Christopher Smith wrote...
> > I personally don't use Outlook but for other reasons. Windows has the
> > incredibly brain dead feature which I immediately turn off when I get my
> > hands on any Windows system and that is to make filename extensions
> > invisible.
>
> Most people I know who have never used computers quite like this. OTOH,
> those who have used computers hate it.
True.
> > Isn't this part of the problem? I don't know if this setting
> > affects how Outlook displays it's attachments because if it does and is
> > enabled, the user will not be able to tell what type of file it is.
>
> If they're used to not having extensions, then they'll look at the icon.
But what if the icon is generic or an unknown? Also, a lot of executables
come with their own icons.
--
ACM.
________________________________________________________
"A thing is not necessarily true because a man dies for it."
------------------------------
From: Keith Edward O'Hara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 03:19:09 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Curtis <alliem@kas*spam*net.com> wrote:
:
: How is joe user going to be able to tell what's what in a perl script
: file when he opens it to view the contents rather than just run it?
: Hmmmm?
Taking this scenario quite seriously, joe user will either
a) have been alerted by the email body that the attachment is code,
and not expect to understand it himself.
b) recognize in the comment at the head of the script either a
co-worker's name or a description of the actions.
c) be surprised to see code, possibly containing e133t speak
or such odd lines as 'i hate go to school',
in which case we hope the surprise prompts caution.
Trojan/virus email could still use cases a) and b),
but the social engineering job would be harder.
I would be suspicious of any executable code from my boss,
but still would have to trust that my sysadmin would not allow malicious
email to appear to come from her account.
Could we eliminate execution as a default action,
without damaging the user interface,
simply by replacing all executables on the desktop
with null-documents having the appropriate association?
That is, Normal.dot replaces winword.exe?
A few programs on my desktop would be inconvenient to make work in this
way, as they do not have file-type associations at present:
gnuplot, Pegasus(mail), Webster(dictionary)
but I could make artificial filetype associations for these.
In this way, only executables which have been 'installed' can be invoked
by hasty mouse clicks.
-
keith
------------------------------
From: "Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: so REALLY, what's the matter with Microsoft?
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 19:21:42 -0800
"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Thu, 9 Nov 2000 22:30:06 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >http://www.microsoft.com/windows/embedded/nt/default.asp
> >
> >Is the embedded version of NT.
>
> But not a real-time version.
>
>
> >If you include the real-time extensions offered by VentureCom (WNT/E
> >includes a subset of VentureCom's product, but it's not strictly hard
> >real-time unless you add the full real-time extensions) then it's
> >completely deterministic down to 6.7 microsecond accuracies.
>
> This is basically the same concept as RTLinux. The only reason I can
> think of to use this instead of RTLinux is if you have some kind of
> love affair going on with Microsoft's development tools. It isn't
> cheaper
Well...eMbedded VB 3.0 and eMbedded C++ are free. Except for shipping and
handling.
http://developerstore.com/devstore/product.asp?productID=7515&store=Toolbox_
NA
Thats cheap.
>, it isn't smaller, and it isn't any easier to program for.
It is if you use VB (the #1 programming language in the world)
Or C++
>On
> top of that, you get to depend on two proprietary vendors instead of
> the usual one.
Until there are 47 flavors of run-time Linux and code-base forks.
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 03:21:45 GMT
"The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >So you can't use Oracle on Linux for >2GB databases without fancy
> >techniques or special filesystems.
> >
> >Thank you for finally ending this thread of this topic.
>
> I'd put it even more strongly than that. It is IMPOSSIBLE to use
> Oracle on Linux for >2GB databases on *any* file system, on
> *any* 32-bit machine, without a recompile using the above options
> and/or explicit use of the xxx64() API and/or multiseeking techniques.
Note that Postgres does it whether or not the OS supports 64 bit
operations, so it is certainly not impossible. Oracle may not
do without raw partition access but it would not be impossible.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
