Linux-Advocacy Digest #169, Volume #30 Sat, 11 Nov 00 00:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Curtis)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (joseph)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Les Mikesell")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Les Mikesell")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Curtis)
Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays. (Curtis)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Christopher Smith")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Les Mikesell")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Curtis)
Re: Of course, there is a down side... (Matt Gaia)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Curtis)
Re: Disapointed in the election (Russ Lyttle)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Les Mikesell")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Of course, there is a down side... (Curtis)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 22:23:17 -0500
Ayende Rahien 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?
>
> What Aaron & Les refuse to understand that anyone who can read VBS/VBA/JS
> (some of the simplest in existance) can understand basic safety measures.
> Those who can't...
> Well, Les suggest a hex editor for exe files.
> I don't know what users Les has to deal with, but I want them.
Yes, he quite 'matter-of-factly' states that they should examine the
files before opening them. I wonder which planet he's on. If he's on
earth then I can just picture his cracked glasses with tape holding a
broken bridge together, as well as a skinny, freckled face with visible
vessels running under sun starved skin. <g> IOW's he needs to get out
more and get a reasonable perspective on his arguments.
--
ACM.
________________________________________________________
"A thing is not necessarily true because a man dies for it."
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 19:27:00 -0500
From: joseph <[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!
Ayende Rahien wrote:
> "Curtis" <alliem@kas*spam*net.com> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Aaron R. Kulkis wrote...
> > > > > Once again you confuse executing with opening. When making
> arguments
> > > > > against Windows, use Windows terminology.
> > >
> > >
> > > YOu fucking shit-fo-brains moron....
> > >
> > > it is precisely BECAUSE MS FAILS TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN "OPENING" AND
> "RUNNING"
> > > that e-mail viruses are so rampant on Microshaft Operlosing Systems.
> >
> > Actually we do know the difference.
> >
> > 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?
>
> What Aaron & Les refuse to understand that anyone who can read VBS/VBA/JS
> (some of the simplest in existance) can understand basic safety measures.
Others stubbornly refuse to understand that system designs that rely on and
blame humans for failures are defective.
So there's this OS targeted for the common user which relies on technical
knowledge and luck to be secure. The vendor crams in features with little
regard about the implications - they jury-rig a dialog box designed by
lawyers - click yes to open and any damage is your fault.
> Those who can't...
> Well, Les suggest a hex editor for exe files.
> I don't know what users Les has to deal with, but I want them.
LOTUS MAGELLAN, a 1980's technology allowed users to view files like DOC,
LXS, C, FORTRAN and etc. I recommend that old technology. Or better yet I
recommed you ask the vendor to fix the problem.
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 03:25:31 GMT
"Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8ug8fh$941$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > Considering that it is Microsoft itself that is now learning the lesson,
> > I think things will change in the future... Do you consider it safe to
> > store your credit card number or other personal or financial information
> > on the same machine that is ready and willing to execute any code
> > someone sends you without letting you realize that it is unusual
> > content for an email attachment?
>
> Which would be, er, any machine I can think of.
You mean you have never seen a machine without outlook installed?
> > Would you let your family or friends
> > that you trust not to damage anything intentionally use outlook on this
> > machine?
>
> "Rm" will do a far more effective job of accidentally damaging things that
> outlook will. Should we take out rm ?
Rm isn't going to mail your files off to someone who wants to steal
the contents. Outlook has demonstrated this capability again and
again.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 03:29:11 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8ugqh6$6g4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > Considering that it is Microsoft itself that is now learning the lesson,
> > I think things will change in the future... Do you consider it safe to
> > store your credit card number or other personal or financial information
> > on the same machine that is ready and willing to execute any code
> > someone sends you without letting you realize that it is unusual
> > content for an email attachment? Would you let your family or friends
> > that you trust not to damage anything intentionally use outlook on this
> > machine?
>
> Yes, of course.
> A> I don't know any system that wouldn't do this.
Anything but outlook.
> B> I know how to behave with attacments, I don't blindly open exe/vbs
files.
Yes I don't question that. The question I asked was whether
you would let other people use outlook on your machine. If
you have to qualify the answer, there is clearly a problem.
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 22:29:33 -0500
Les Mikesell wrote...
> > However, you save it to disk, and then what? The average user with just
> > double click it.
>
>
> 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.
Explain to me how that feature would prevent the joe user from infecting
his system.
If he does have the knowledge to use such a feature effectively, then he
wouldn't really need the feature in the first place, because in Windows,
he would simply view the file with his favourite editor (not notepad
because he's no longer a Joe user) by simply right clicking the file and
selecting to do so.
If his ignorance remains as it is now, he'd simply make the file
executable and go about the business of infecting his system. See? The
problem remains between chair and keyboard. Neither Windows or Outlook
are at fault here.
--
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
Subject: Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays.
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 22:32:08 -0500
Christopher Smith 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.
>
> Get a folder displaying how you like it, then go to the Tools menu ->
> Options -> View -> "Like current folder".
Thanks. I already found out. Nice. I'm getting to like Win2k more and
more.
--
ACM.
________________________________________________________
"A thing is not necessarily true because a man dies for it."
------------------------------
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 13:50:49 +1000
"Curtis" <alliem@kas*spam*net.com> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 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.
If it's generic or unknown, then it won't be run by VBScript (unless someone
has redefined the icons and/or filetypes). If it's an executable with its
own icon then that is no different to have .exe on the end of the filename.
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[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 03:52:00 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8ugp4i$5q5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > > > That is the point. It doesn't know, and shouldn't know about
> > executables
> > > > and should never allow them to be executed. It should only hand to
> > > > programs known *not* to execute untrusted content.
> > >
> > > Such as?
> >
> > Programs that won't do anything other than display regardless
> > of the content.
>
> And what would those programs would be? Who would choose them?
This hasn't been a problem for anyone but Microsoft.
> > > Surprise! Word asks you whatever you want to run the code, by default.
> > > You've to answer yes/no in order to view the document.
> >
> > If you have to make this choice blindly, then word is not a suitable
> > viewer unless the mailer can force the option off.
>
> You don't choose blindly, you say no, review the code, and then choose
> whatever to execute it.
Can you guarantee that everyone will do it in exactly that
order?
> > > > > *.exe?
> > > >
> > > > A hex dumper.
> > >
> > > How useful is *that* for the average users?
> >
> > Much more useful than the default action of ILOVEYOU.TXT.vbs.
>
> ILOVEYOU.TXT.vbs isn't binary file.
One could do exactly the same thing - or worse.
> > > Netscape Communicator JPEG-Comment Heap Overwrite Vulnerability
> > > a.. executes arbitrary code in the comment field of a JPEG image
> > > You see my point?
> >
> > No but I can see that you can't tell the difference between a program
> > bug and a bad design. Using Netscape to view a jpeg is about like
> > using a steamroller to squash a fly anyway.
>
> I'm trying to show you that there aren't any safe file types.
Do you leave your doors unlocked because locks can
be picked anyway? Nothing is absolutely safe and
safety is never an all-or-nothing choice. Outlook could
be safer without being less convenient, and it should be.
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 23:02:55 -0500
joseph wrote...
> > What Aaron & Les refuse to understand that anyone who can read VBS/VBA/JS
> > (some of the simplest in existance) can understand basic safety measures.
>
> Others stubbornly refuse to understand that system designs that rely on and
> blame humans for failures are defective.
Please do not take this argument and sillily blow it out of proportion by
making such an obviously correct general statement. You have to draw the
line somewhere. So tell me. If the user fires up an X terminal in Linux
and proceeds to format one of his partitions with sensitive data, who do
you blame? The system design? Oh, give me a small break.
> So there's this OS targeted for the common user which relies on technical
> knowledge and luck to be secure.
Luck? What do you mean by that?
> The vendor crams in features with little
> regard about the implications - they jury-rig a dialog box designed by
> lawyers - click yes to open and any damage is your fault.
Oh yes indeed. Ignorance taken advantage of. The answer is to cure the
ignorance. It really doesn't take much to achieve this either.
--
ACM.
________________________________________________________
"A thing is not necessarily true because a man dies for it."
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 23:07:37 -0500
From: Matt Gaia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Of course not.
>
> Linux doesn't stay installed on a home users system long enough to
> cause problems.
>
> Typically it gets installed and deleted the same day after the user
> gets a good look at what she got for free. Hopefully she was smart
> enough not to buy a boxed set at $79.95 or more :(
>
> claire
So I guess that means that the fact that Mandrake 7.0 has been on my
computer since about mid-January with no crashes doesn't count, does it?
Or however long I toyed with 6.1 on mine doesn't count either? The only
reason 7.0 isn't still on there is because I just put 7.2 on it.
As far as problems with Windows go, well *starts snickering*, I probably
shouldn't even go there. I'll just say that's it's included two full
re-installs of 98 SE for various reasons, replacing a CMOS battery after
2000 fried it, and my NT loader miraculously corrupting after installing
2000 again. Oh, and a format of the 98/2000 drive from the NT Loader
crash, which is why I'm glad I didn't let Mandrake near that drive. And
total cost of my Linux CD's: about $3 (one CD each for 6.1 and 7.0, and
2 CD's for 7.2) And by the way, keep going and you might be in the
running for my dumbass plonk of the year award. :)
====== 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: 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 23:12:32 -0500
Christopher Smith wrote...
> > But what if the icon is generic or an unknown? Also, a lot of executables
> > come with their own icons.
>
> If it's generic or unknown, then it won't be run by VBScript (unless someone
> has redefined the icons and/or filetypes). If it's an executable with its
> own icon then that is no different to have .exe on the end of the filename.
Hmmm. Seemingly workable. :-) However, I still feel that it's a system
that fosters ignorance on the part of the user. Files are often
identified by their extensions on a day to day basis in text documents
and written conversation. If they are left there, the user will become
accustomed to their presence and what they mean.
--
ACM.
________________________________________________________
"A thing is not necessarily true because a man dies for it."
------------------------------
From: Russ Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Disapointed in the election
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 04:29:03 GMT
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
> On Fri, 10 Nov 2000 01:46:20 GMT, Russ Lyttle wrote:
> >Clamchu wrote:
> >My ballot had *SIX* candidates on it. What did you think of the other
> >four?
>
> The other four are irrelevant. The US electoral system is a two party
> duopoly. I'm not saying that's good or bad. I'm simply pointing out
> that under the US electoral system, it's dumb to vote for anyone besides
> one of the leaders.
>
> This is why minor party candidates never gain any momentum. Nader might
> well have pulled five percent if the system didn't penalise those who
> vote for minor parties.
>
> --
> Donovan
It is a duopoly. But the only dumb vote is the one not cast. I know too
many people who stayed home because they didn't like either major party
candidate. They should have voted for one of the minor parties or "none
of the above" just to register their opinion. Next time the Democrats
will move a long way left due to thinking the Green party cost them the
election.
(Wrong thought in my opinion, but the way the media is playing it up)
--
Russ Lyttle, PE
<http://www.flash.net/~lyttlec>
Not Powered by ActiveX
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[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 04:29:53 GMT
"Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8ug89q$e9l$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> >
> > Saving to disk is worse. At that point you effectively own it.
>
> So let's get this straight:
> 1. Executing directly from the email is Bad.
> 2. Saving it to disk is Worse.
>
> JUST HOW THE FUCK ARE PEOPLE SUPPOSED TO DEAL WITH ATTACHMENTS ?
I've said it over and over. The mailer should know the MIME types
that it can display safely and either have the corresponding code
internally or a list of programs that are safe. Safe operations are
not a new concept - java applets deal with it pretty well.
> > > Once again you confuse executing with opening. When making arguments
> > > against Windows, use Windows terminology.
> >
> > I am making arguments about an email program. It does not have
> > to inherit all of Windows problems in order to run there.
>
> It runs under Windows. Therefore it uses Windows' semantics and UI.
Perhaps you don't know of any others - but they still exist. Regardless,
there is no need for user-visible differences for a mailer to map
mime types to viewing programs for you. The only difference would
be that if you get an attachment that might damage your system you
would be warned, and you would not be warned about things that
can be viewed safely. That seems much more consistent with other
access to me - how is it that you think being warned about *every*
open in the mailer is consistent with anything else you do in windows?
The only thing different would be that the warning would only be
necessary for the unknown or known-dangerous attachments.
> > Still there is a difference between opening and executing a perl
> > script. I would open it to view or edit its contents.
>
> Good for you. I would edit it to edit it and double click it to run it
(or
> type in the name).
'Edit it'? Does the dialog you use to open it in an editor really replace
the word 'open' with 'edit'? Is the shortcut ALT-F/E now? To be
consistent, don't you need a 'File/edit' dialog inside outlook for
the attachments too?
> > Do you remember the problem here or not?
>
> Yes. The problem is dumb people doing dumb things.
Normal people doing normal things, and changing them
is not one of the choices.
> > Of course. But any reasonable system will distinguish between
> > enough trust to view something and enough trust to allow it to
> > take control with all your permissions. Outlook doesn't.
>
> Neither does any other program. If you execute anything in any OS, it
runs
> with your permissions.
Right, so other OS's have ways to view things without executing them.
> > No, you would have a point if you had previously been able to
> > safely view the contents, or had been warned that the content
> > of this attachment has no preconfigured safe viewer and is
> > unlike normal multimedia mail attachments.
>
> You can safely view the contents and you *do* get a warning saying the
> contents might be dangerous.
We've been here before. You can't do that within the mailer which should
be the thing responsible for showing it to you safely, and you get the
nonsense warning about everything, not just the ones that might be
dangerous.
> > > > If you want to shoot off your foot you should
> > > > be allowed to.
> > >
> > > Really ? So far in this thread you've spent countless posts arguing
you
> > > *shouldn't* be able to.
> >
> > No, I have never said anything like that.
>
> *Boggle*. You've spent this entire thread waxing lyrical about how
outlook
> opening attachments is a bad idea.
Executing attachments is a bad idea. Confusing opening with executing
is a bad idea. Viewing attachments is just fine.
> It's even better now - now we can't even save them to our hard disks
because
> that's a bad idea.
Yes a very bad idea, especially when the OS does not have a concept
of 'execute' permissions and will run the thing whenever anyone
touches it.
> Pretty soon you'll be wanting attachments stripped off at the mail server.
No, I want a mailer that does not execute them or encourage you
to save to a file without viewing them.
> > What I have said is that
> > you should be allowed to know whether the gun is loaded and
> > which way it is pointing at the time you pull the trigger or deposit
> > it where children play.
>
> You do.
I don't.
> The icon of the file tells you.
I'm icon-challanged.
> The extension tells you.
What's an extension? .TXT.vbs
> The filename will usually give some indication.
To whom?
> > You, on the other hand keep insisting
> > that such knowledge is unimportant as you make your choice.
> > Ready, fire, aim...
>
> No, I am aware that such knowledge is *already there* for those who have
the
> intelligence to look.
You seem to have no concept of cause and effect here. We know what
happens. I know there is a reason for it.
> >
> > Yet most of the Windows-using world has been unable to get this right.
>
> Most people are stupid and/or ignorant. Your point ?
Is it impossible to fool you?
> > I have trouble myself trying to get anything but the default action to
> > happen to any file under windows and I'd bet that 90% of the users
> > don't know it is possible.
>
> ANd without that default action most people wouldn't be able to get a file
> to do anything _at all_.
Attachments in email shouldn't do anything. You should view them.
> > I don't see any equivalence here in either functionality or ease of use
> > when compared to automatically running a viewer for each type
> > that can safely be viewed and telling you that the unknown types
> > do not have a safe handler before you choose to bless it with your
> > ownership in the filesystem.
>
> Because it's a stupid waste of resources to have to maintain both lists.
Ask Microsoft if it would have been worth it.
> Because a safe viewer doesn't always exist.
And you like that situation?
> Because it's inconsistent UI.
It is not consistent now. Either the desktop should pop the
stupid warning or the mailer should shut up and do things
right.
> Because it's an inconveniece to others.
It would be more convenient.
> Because it would have made fuck all difference if people had had to save
the
> attachment to their hard disk before running it.
Of course it would.
> > However
> > other mailers do not prevent you from making an informed choice
> > about this before you do it.
>
> Neither does outlook.
It did, and does, and we know what it causes.
> > Huh? Anyone who touches it is still going to invoke the default action.
> > But now it belongs to you.
>
> The "safety" being the fact everyone's going to hav eto change the default
> action before it can do anything bad.
What are you talking about - the people who propagated ILOVEYOU
did no such thing whether they saved it first or just opened it.
> > Mailers with a mailcap concept can
> > avoid turning over control to the whims of the sender and let you
> > know that you have something unusual.
>
> As does outlook.
What action is different? Why does it warn you about everything?
> > I have repeated
> > exactly the same point over and over. Do I have to say it again
> > for every instance of someone executing a virus accidentally?
>
> You said something along the lines of "any mailer that lets you save
> attachments is broken".
No, I might have said that a mailer that encourages you to save a
file without safely viewing its contents first is broken. I have
never suggested that you should be prevented from making
informed choices. However only the author of a virus or
trojan is making an informed choice. Everyone else involved
is being fooled, and outlook is generally the thing doing the
deception.
> No, outlook only executes something you tell it to.
No one ever told it to execute visual basic. It did it because
of a choice the sender made.
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 06:28:57 +0200
"Curtis" <alliem@kas*spam*net.com> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Christopher Smith wrote...
> > > 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.
If it's unknown, they it wouldn't be executed or even viewed, it will give
you the open with window.
As for executables, that is indeed a problem.
------------------------------
From: Curtis <alliem@kas*spam*net.com>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 23:32:07 -0500
Matt Gaia wrote...
> > Of course not.
> >
> > Linux doesn't stay installed on a home users system long enough to
> > cause problems.
> >
> > Typically it gets installed and deleted the same day after the user
> > gets a good look at what she got for free. Hopefully she was smart
> > enough not to buy a boxed set at $79.95 or more :(
Admittedly a trolling statement. :-)
> So I guess that means that the fact that Mandrake 7.0 has been on my
> computer since about mid-January with no crashes doesn't count, does it?
> Or however long I toyed with 6.1 on mine doesn't count either? The only
> reason 7.0 isn't still on there is because I just put 7.2 on it.
>
> As far as problems with Windows go, well *starts snickering*, I probably
> shouldn't even go there. I'll just say that's it's included two full
> re-installs of 98 SE for various reasons,
I guess my wife, and my friends positive experiences don't count eh? They
haven't had to reinstall their systems which are quite problem free
except for the occasional lockups and crashes expected of a Win98 system.
:-) In fact, my wifes Compaq is nearly a year old and believe it or not
(even I find it hard to believe) the damn thing has only crashed once.
Not that it's been pushed .... but you know that Win98 will crash under
any load, right? :-)
> replacing a CMOS battery after 2000 fried it,
LOL! That's original. How do you surmise that 2000 did that? You're
speaking about an OS, right?
> and my NT loader miraculously corrupting after installing
> 2000 again.
Again another hardluck story. I've installed Win2k twice using my old NT
installations bootloader without any problems. The first Win2k
installation was to another directory apart from NT. The next
installation was to my new 18GB hard disk. No hard luck occurrences to
relate. :-(
I'll however disappoint you by saying that my negative experiences with
Linux has not been with installation. The recent distributions have been
easy to install. Neither have I had stability problems while using it for
the limited time that I have just for curiosities sake. I simply think
it's an OS that unnecessarily complex for the many day to day tasks that
the average user would wish to accomplish. Windows will continue to be a
far better solution in that regard.
Of course I'll continue to read the hard luck stories that seem to mainly
plague the alternative OS enthusiasts. Bias anyone? :-)
> Oh, and a format of the 98/2000 drive from the NT Loader
> crash, which is why I'm glad I didn't let Mandrake near that drive. And
> total cost of my Linux CD's: about $3 (one CD each for 6.1 and 7.0, and
> 2 CD's for 7.2) And by the way, keep going and you might be in the
> running for my dumbass plonk of the year award. :)
Aaah, lighten up. You aren't doing badly yourself in a similar way from
your post.
--
ACM.
________________________________________________________
"A thing is not necessarily true because a man dies for it."
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
