Linux-Advocacy Digest #229, Volume #30 Tue, 14 Nov 00 09:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Curtis)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Curtis)
Re: True GTK+ will eliminate Qt in next few years? (mlw)
Re: NT/2000 true multiuser? (The Great Suprendo)
Re: NT/2000 true multiuser? (The Great Suprendo)
Re: Most important computer program in the history of humanity (George Richard
Russell)
Re: Linux vs Microsoft Misconceptions: (Marc Richter)
Re: Most important computer program in the history of humanity (DeAnn)
Re: Most important computer program in the history of humanity (Marc Richter)
Re: Linux vs Microsoft Misconceptions: ("MH")
Re: We will never know what the MS intruder did ("Chad Myers")
Re: Of course, there is a down side... ("Chad Myers")
OT: Could someone explain C++ phobia in Linux? (mlw)
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum ("Chad Myers")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Pascal Haakmat)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 06:14:24 -0500
Pascal Haakmat wrote...
> >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.
>
> Nobody can know everything about anything. That is why people buy software
> instead of writing it themselves.
Please don't play the ass or be silly.
The required knowledge to make one able to write an application is a
different ballgame altogether compared to the knowledge you need in order
to prevent running malicious content contained withing e-mail attachments
unintentionally. You therefore cannot compare the two. Even if you're
saying it figuratively it doesn't slide.
Amazingly you're the same guys advocating that they use an OS like Linux.
Gee.
--
___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: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 06:26:09 -0500
Les Mikesell wrote...
> > If even this is not true, then my question of 'why bring another concept
> > to confuse the joe user' becomes even more pertinent. He hasn't even
> > assimilated the concept of a file, much less the concept of an e-mail
> > attachments and what they really represent.
>
> If he doesn't have any concept of a file and the difference between
> his trusted files and an email attachment it is because it is hidden
> from him. People working in DOS before windows came around
> really had no trouble with the concept of files and opening them
> with applications at all. Now they have no idea where things
> go when they save them and can't even figure out how to put a
> copy on a floppy.
That's because like UNIX, you'll never get around DOS without learning
any ground rules first and how to move around.
However, my DAD was burning CD's, sampling music from Vinyl's, removing
pop's and clicks etc. He installed all the software to do this and yet he
couldn't navigate his file system. It was pretty amazing actually. This
is why the novice loves Windows so much. They really don't have to learn
anything to start being productive. For some like my Dad and my sister,
they don't have to learn Windows at all to do what they use their
computers for.
--
___ACM________________________________________________________
"A thing is not necessarily true because a man dies for it."
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.unix.solaris
Subject: Re: True GTK+ will eliminate Qt in next few years?
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 06:59:53 -0500
Darin Johnson wrote:
>
> mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > * Very hard to make bindings to languages other than C++.
> > Not true.
> >
> > extern "C" function(....)
>
> True, but that may not be the point. Ie, if the interface is in C,
> then it doesn't matter if the actual implementation is in C++ or
> Fortran or something else. When people say "I wish this library was
> in C++" they usually mean they want the library interface is in C++,
> not implemented in C++ with an `extern "C"' interface.
Certainly not I. My gripe is the GTK itself. It tries to be object
oriented but is a horrible mess because they IMHO chose C instead of C++
because they didn't like C++, not because it wasn't the better tool for
the job.
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: The Great Suprendo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NT/2000 true multiuser?
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 12:08:48 +0000
A certain Aaron R. Kulkis, of comp.os.linux.advocacy "fame", writes :
>> "Crippled" is the wrong word. It is "crippled" in the sense that only
>> ten users can connect to shares on it at once. But would a user
>> workstation want to share files out to more than ten users ? It's no
>
>That's for the administrator to decide, not the vendor.
What administrator would use a user's workstation for sharing files ?
The user would get upset for a start. Wouldn't be permitted in any
organization I've had experience of, unless there was a serious case
made for it (and if there was, they'd just buy a server).
>> The different versions of W2K server are like different distributions of
>> Linux. There are two different distributions for SuSE for example. They
>> are just aimed at different classes of user and machine. You wouldn't
>> try to argue that SuSE Linux 7.0 Personal was a "crippled" version of
>> the Professional edition, would you ?
>
>Only if the NFS module on one had an arbitrarily set limit on the
>number of remote hosts that could connect to it, and the other didn't.
My point is - is it a cripple if the functionality is rarely, if ever
going to be used in the first place ?
--
ROAR UP MY TWAT!!!
------------------------------
From: The Great Suprendo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NT/2000 true multiuser?
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 12:10:24 +0000
A certain Aaron R. Kulkis, of comp.os.linux.advocacy "fame", writes :
>> Yes, it can do that with Windows 2000 Server. The client can be Win98SE,
>> Windows 3.1 (!), MS-DOS, Linux, or any other OS supported by the Citrix
>> client.
>
>Windows is STILL playing catchup.
>
>X-windows was been ported to a MUCH wider variety of platforms
>in the early 1990'.s
What freely redistributable versions are available for those platforms ?
The Citrix client is free on all of the platforms I listed.
--
ROAR UP MY TWAT!!!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (George Richard Russell)
Crossposted-To: comp.ms.windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Most important computer program in the history of humanity
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 12:21:40 GMT
In article <w32Q5.195570$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, mmnnoo wrote:
>Although this strikes me as ridiculous and somewhat offensive, I can't
>think of any other computer programs that really deserve the title, either.
Multics, HAL, Deep blue, Mosaic, PGP, Smalltalk
Weight them as you will.
At least one of them should be ready soon ;-)
George Russell
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marc Richter)
Subject: Re: Linux vs Microsoft Misconceptions:
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 22:58:13 -0500
On Thu, 09 Nov 2000 20:47:39 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Thu, 9 Nov 2000 14:42:09 -0500, "Clifford W. Racz"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>And they complain about Microsoft support.
>FWIW Linux supports laptops, but getting one up and running is no easy
>trick. Keeping it running is an even bigger trick.
>
Pure FUD. Laptops under Linux are glorious -- my Thinkpad supports
PC cards BETTER under Slackware 7.1 than under any flavor of Winders.
For instance, I can eject and insert multiple NIC cards at will. Each
time, the system brings the network back up seamlessly on insert and
grabs a new IP address if it's a card that hasn't been used or
if the lease on the IP is expired.
>
>>So, I try Mandrake 7.2 recently, which goes very well! Find a configuration
>>on the Linux Laptop page that came out about the same time as Mandrake 7.2
>>and now my laptop runs.
>
>But for how long?
>
http://www.vitinc.com/~marc/linux.html will tell you of my journey
with Linux and it's ongoing evolution into my favorite desktop OS. Most
of this time has been spent on the same Thinkpad 600, with virtually
no troubles at all.
>>On my desktop, I cannot get the kernel to compile - I get an Error 2 message
>>no matter what. So sound won't be compiled in and I can't get anything to
>>work (like Gnome recording stuff). What a waste of time.
>
>Welcome to the silent Linux users group. Who needs sound anyway, I
>mean Napster is going away so we really don't need those nasty mp3's.
>
Yeah, that's why I've got a 4 gig partition on this laptop dedicated
to MP3s.
Your ignorance and blind hatred is starting to wear thin, Claire.
>
>>I am an american, so i want ease of use. I have children that are growing
>>up and my son always asks me, when I am ttrying to get the computer running,
>>"Dada, did you broked it again? The computer? I wanna play with yooooo..."
>
>You can teach him all about computer history starting with Asteroids.
>See Linux, DOES have some use.
>
>
>>After many, MANY hours of playing with Linux , after I bought RedHat box-set
>>with "Support", spent many hours combing the web for info, read much of my
>>Osbourne "The Complete Reference: Red Hat Linux" (which is a great book for
>>new guys), and got everything running and usable, I have concluded this:
>
>Would you like to split a case of Visine? I think I still have a
>couple of bottles left. Funny thing is the only time I use the net for
>Windows is when I search for updated drivers, which I generally don't
>need anyway, but I like to be current.
>I've NEVER had to search the net to figure out how to do something
>basic like make a soundcard work.
Yeah, well I use the Net every day to fix Windows problems. My daughters
love Microsoft and company - their shoddy programming ensures crashes
and that I'll have a steady job cleaning up Windows problems as long
as they are around.
>
>
>>After all was said and done, it wasn't worth it. If you are a new guy or
>>just want a computer to use for simple stuff (like word processing, web
>>browsing, playing a few games, that sort of thing) Don't mess with Linux.
>>It just isn't ready yet.
When did it become fashionable to be ignorant about complicated pieces
of technology?
>
>And by the time it is, if that ever happens, the market will be so
>pissed off at previous attempts at using Linux that it will be ignored
>even more than it is now.
>>Additionally, Don't mess with Linux on a laptop unless you have a LOT of
>>free time to waste. It just isn't ready yet.
Then I guess I'm delusional and not really using Linux happily on this
laptop RIGHT NOW.
>
>I would have more respect for Linux if it had a big red sticker on the
>box that said :
>
>"No User Serviceable Parts Inside" Experienced Geeks only.
>
>claire
>
>
Claire, computers are not toasters. They can break in strange ways.
Windows, Mac, Linux --- all of these end-user systems have the quirks
that need to be discovered and overcome. Including your newly beloved
Windows 2000...I've watched that puppy self-destruct on several systems,
both desktop and laptop.
And anyone who honestly believes that Windows is easy for simpletons
to fix has, IMHO, never truly watched a novice stumble about in the
dark that these stupid piles of silicon and metal can create.
It seems that you take great joy in crowing over your failures and
the failures of others to operate Linux machines. Strange. Not exactly
the attitude of the technological pioneers who got us this far.
--
Marc A. Richter I&R Deployed Support
The contents of this message express only the sender's opinion.
This message does not necessarily reflect the policy or views of
my employer, Merck & Co., Inc. All responsibility for the statements
made in this Usenet posting resides solely and completely with the
sender.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (DeAnn)
Crossposted-To: comp.ms.windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Most important computer program in the history of humanity
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 12:48:37 GMT
On Tue, 14 Nov 2000 03:11:24 GMT, "mmnnoo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>A Microsoft exec dubs Windows 2000
>"the most important computer program in the history of humanity"
>(http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/nov2000/nf20001113_046.htm)
>
>Although this strikes me as ridiculous and somewhat offensive, I can't
>think of any other computer programs that really deserve the title, either.
>
>
>
My first thought was "VisiCalc"--the original spreadsheet
program with wide distribution. It took computers from the home
hobbiest to the business desk. "WordStar" deserves mention in that
respect, too.
Perhaps in 20 years, we will all say Linux (or
Gnu/Linux)....because it could take software out of the proprietary
lock mode and into commonality mode.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marc Richter)
Crossposted-To: comp.ms.windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Most important computer program in the history of humanity
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 07:50:58 -0500
On Tue, 14 Nov 2000 03:11:24 GMT, mmnnoo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>A Microsoft exec dubs Windows 2000
>"the most important computer program in the history of humanity"
>(http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/nov2000/nf20001113_046.htm)
>
>Although this strikes me as ridiculous and somewhat offensive, I can't
>think of any other computer programs that really deserve the title, either.
>
Right off the top of my head, here are 2:
1. bind
Without it, the Internet would not work. Period. And the Internet is
much much more important, both as a concept and tool, than any single
machine or program running in isolation.
2. Visicalc (first spreadsheet, appeared on the Apple 2)
It single handedly legitimized the desktop personal computer in small
to mid-sized businesses. It was one of the things that gave IBM the
kick-in-the-ass to market the original PC.
Of course, "importance" is wrapped in opinion and subjective criteria.
So that should flame-proof me to some degree <grin>
>
>
--
Marc A. Richter I&R Deployed Support
The contents of this message express only the sender's opinion.
This message does not necessarily reflect the policy or views of
my employer, Merck & Co., Inc. All responsibility for the statements
made in this Usenet posting resides solely and completely with the
sender.
------------------------------
From: "MH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux vs Microsoft Misconceptions:
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 08:46:11 -0500
I'm sorry, but I think your argument is as bad as the win-trolls you berate.
(But would have nothing to do\say\write without)
You misstate facts, make up facts, misspell words, mangle grammar &
structure, and you expect me to take your argument seriously. Please take a
moment to look into a few of your assertions. Number 7 is a real doozy.
Sorry, but it doesn't work that way.
"Javaduke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8udf82$3ps$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Here are some Linux vs. Windows misconceptions:
>
> 1. Linux is an OS: Linux is not the total operating system. Linux,
strictly
> speaking is only the kernel, however, when refering to the full
> distribution, it is refered to as GNU/Linux
>
> 2. Linux is unstable: Linux (see q1) is not unstable, however, the
> distribution (see q1) may be, technophiles generally stick to Debian
because
> of it's strict policy of defining what applications can be included with
the
> distribution. Alot of crashes that do happen are not always due to
software
> bugs, many times they can be caused by faulty hardware, however, Linux is
> more fault tolerant than Windows when running it on a desktop.
>
> 3. Linux is hard: Linux is not hard, it is just different. Claire Lynn
and
> co. and beat around the bush as much as they like but the fact of the
matter
> is that I could of easily said "I'm going to stick with my Amiga 500 and
> Workbench 1.3" and never bought a PC, however, I did buy a PC, and I did
> teach my self the basics by reading books, so the explaination of "Linux
us
> too hard" doesn't cut the mustard. I now use a Ultra Sparc 5 w/ 128MB ram
> and Solaris 8, a step up from Linux, and even though some Linux purists
see
> the battle ground as Linux vs. the rest, I have talked to SUN NZ and they
> encourage low end users to use Linux as it provides the low cost stepping
> stone to allow a user to gain experience using a UNIX like OS then move
onto
> a more commercial one like Solaris.
>
> 4. Windows is user friendly: If Windows was user friendly the first thing
> that Windows would be able to do is recover correctly either after a crash
> or installation of a bad/corrupted driver, if the NT kernel is the future
of
> OS's then god help us as I have faced on many occasions Windows failing to
> load concluding with a blue screen of death, worse still, I had to
> re-install Windows, all because the driver was a little thingy (I finally
> got it loading by keeping the zip disk in the drive whilst NT was
loading).
> Secondly, Microsoft would ensure that users are not scared to death of
being
> hacked to pieces when using high speed internet, you could however, get a
> third party tool, however, if an OS is properly designed it would not be
> necessary for a user with a single computer connected via the internet to
go
> out and buy a decent form of protection.
>
> 5. Microsoft Tech Support is Great: Another myth created by the wintrolls
> of the world. 1. Had Microsoft actually listened to customers (which the
> claim to do) they would not charge for techsupport, shite, ya pay $400 for
a
> bloody piece of software, a little support would be nice! 2. I rang up,
> after two hours of getting switched from department to department I was
> finally told that they had changed there database format and as a result I
> would have to read a 6 page document describing how I can import it into
> Visual Basic 6 using a special work around.
>
> 6. Linux's hardware support is limited: This was true in the past,
however,
> now with the pending release of kernel 2.4 the only pieces of hardware not
> supported are obscure pieces of hardware that 0.0000000000001% of computer
> users have, such as cheap, so-called, SB compliant cards and USB devices
> nobodies heard of.
>
> 7. Microsoft Innovates: This is another misconception, here are two
> examples, Java, Microsoft broke a licensing deal with Sun Microsystems
> regarding Java technology. Microsoft's excuse....."We embraced and
extended
> Java functionality"...laymens terms....lets really fuck Java
up.....another
> example is Internet Explorer..........created propriety extensions of the
> HTML language........."We embrased and extended HTML fuctionality to
provide
> a better user experience".......in laymens terms....lets really fuck
> Netscape.......Two examples of a company using its monopoly in the
> operating-system market to screw competition by screwing open standards.
>
> javaduke
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: We will never know what the MS intruder did
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 13:33:46 GMT
"Ketil Z Malde" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> The point is that we only know about security issues from Microsoft as
> >> and when they feel like telling - i.e. after a fix is available. You
> >> have third party sources, but the other point (which you label "yadda
> >> yadda") is that it is very hard for third parties to identify bugs
> >> without access to source.
>
> > This is a false presumption.
>
> What is? That it's harder for third parties to identify bugs with
> closed source? You actually think using a disassembler is as easy as
> reading C?
Of course not, but when it comes to finding bugs, it appears your
claims do not stand up to the facts. What I'm saying is, there are watchdog
groups that will find this stuff no matter what, and they DO!
The source for Linux is there, but it doesn't appear that people are content
to wallow through miles and miles of poorly written code when all the
tried and true methods (the ones they use for Windows) work just as well on
Linux.
> > People are finding bugs at a rate almost as frequent as Linux,
> > although it's waning now in the past few months.
>
> Well, one conclusion could be that there are "almost as many" bugs in
> NT as in Linux, another could be that there are many more bugs in NT,
> but that they are harder to find.
I wasn't making assumptions. You're trying to say it's harder to find
bugs in closed source, and I'm saying, "Look at the numbers". The numbers
suggest no one is having a hard time finding bugs in NT.
> >>> Not really. In fact, just the contrary, it was you guys who were comparing
> >>> ALL of MS products to Linux.
>
> >> Uh? "Linux" is just the kernel, I'm not aware of any current security
> >> issues with it. I'm not aware of ever claiming it's fair to compare
> >> an OS kernel with a full system - even if MS thinks a web browser is
> >> an "integral part" of an OS.
>
> > Ah yes, the old "Linux is just a kernel" copout. I'm sick of you guys
> > changing the goal line when it suits your purposes.
>
> What?! Who's changing the goal line?
Linux is a kernel, it isn't a kernel, it is a kernel. You change the
definition of Linux (which is typically most of the distributions, or
the common code that they all shared which is typically more than the kernel)
to suits your needs in the heat of the debate.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 13:38:38 GMT
"Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chad Myers wrote:
>
> > None of which are near completion, would be considered anywhere near stable
> > and go completely against the grain of *nix style "security".
> >
> > It's a hack-job on an antiquated and inadequate security model. Several Unix
> > vendors have implemented DAC on their platforms, but only for Government
> > jobs since the DOD requires it, but it's still a hack-job there, as well.
> >
> > It's the design philosophy that counts, not the attempts of individuals
> > to correct the original poor design that matters.
> >
>
> Then how is it that I use ACLs on Linux every day. And those ACLs are shared
with
> AIX.
I didn't say it wasn't impossible, but it was a fundamental shift. I remember
reading a few of the ACL projects' to-do list and it was almost completely
dedicated to "fixing this application", "getting this application up to speed",
"fixing this service", etc.
It's a fundamental design principle in Linux and most Unixes that they use
the permission bits scheme and there's a long road ahead to get everything
switched over.
And even then, does the entire OS function with discretionary access control
in mind, or just the file system? In order for a OS to be truly DAC-minded,
everything must be controllable with DAC. For instance, the registry,
local system policies, group policies, network and internet access policies,
and much more are controllable through the same DAC framework that exists
in the filesystem.
To summarize, is it or will it be pervasive?
-Chad
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: OT: Could someone explain C++ phobia in Linux?
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 09:00:03 -0500
I use Linux all the time, I think it is a great system. I maintain a
Windows box, but it is never used except as a TV or for Lego Mindstorms
for my son. At work, I am fortunate in that I can use Linux.
The one problem I have with many of Open Source people is this sort of
emotional dislike for C++.
I use C++ all the time, I can't even understand why someone would start
a non-trivial project using C. C++ is a superset of C. Most C code will
compile fine with C++, the exceptions being borderline constructs which
are probably bad form anyway.
This is not a troll! I am being serious and sincere. I am a software
engineer / architect professionally, and I have had to argue this point
many times with some of guys we hire. It is my role to make sure the
right decisions are made.
Under what circumstances is "C" a better choice than "C++?"
(excluding backward compatibility in an existing product)
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[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: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 13:47:55 GMT
"Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8ur412$aa0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Bruce Schuck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> : Don't be so blatantly dishonest.
>
> : I quoted:
>
> : "Internally, all Oracle8i file I/O routines support 64-bit file offsets,
> : meaning that there are no 2GB or 4GB file size limitations when it comes to
> : data, log, or control files as is the case on some other platforms."
>
> : "some other platforms" have 2GB or 4GB file limitations.
>
> : Linux and Unix would be examples.
>
> Take your own advice - don't be so blatantly dishonest. The 2Gb
> limit is *not* built-in to Linux or other Unixes, and it exists
> *only* when the CPU is 32-bit, and varies depending on the
> filesystem used.
Linux, ext2fs... the limit is built-in because the designers weren't
smart enough to do what several other OSes have successfully been
able to do.
Is it platform independant? Not really. NT was able to support
this 8eb file size limit on every platform it ran on (32-bit and
64-bit).
It's a failing and design flaw of Linux, would you please admit this
and move on? Linus, Red Hat, and several others have admitted this
flaw and are fixing it, why can't you?
-Chad
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pascal Haakmat)
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: 14 Nov 2000 14:05:54 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Curtis wrote:
>Pascal Haakmat wrote...
>> >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.
>>
>> Nobody can know everything about anything. That is why people buy software
>> instead of writing it themselves.
>
>Please don't play the ass or be silly.
Funny you should say that after snipping all but the most capricious remark
from my post.
>The required knowledge to make one able to write an application is a
>different ballgame altogether compared to the knowledge you need in order
>to prevent running malicious content contained withing e-mail attachments
>unintentionally. You therefore cannot compare the two. Even if you're
>saying it figuratively it doesn't slide.
To write a good word processor, you need to know more than just a
programming language and an API. Depending on your ambition, you also need
to know about measurements (inches, centimeters), font families, page sizes,
typing habits, spelling, grammar, language, aesthetics, and so forth.
People don't buy your word processor just because it accepts text from the
keyboard and displays it on the screen. They buy it because it contains
knowledge.
Similarly, an email client needs to know things. It needs to know about
other people, mailing lists, priority mail, replies, forwarding, privacy and
trust. So if you decide to design an email client, then YOU need to know
about all these things, and more.
The problem with Microsoft is not that they don't write good code per se.
The problem with Microsoft is that the code is written by people who lack
the domain specific knowledge to make good decisions about what to code and
how to code it.
Just of the top of my head, I can identify three issues where Outlook's
knowledge turns out to be simply inappropriate for the domain:
1. Quoting.
2. TNEF attachments.
3. ILOVEYOU.
The ILOVEYOU security hole was caused by three decisions on the part of
Microsoft. First, the decision that open-is-execute. Second, the decision to
hide a file's extension. Third, the decision to allow a script easy access
to a user's address book. Combined, they allowed the creation of ILOVEYOU.
The "success" of ILOVEYOU has very little to do with ignorant, stupid and
complacent users, as you suggest. In fact, very much the opposite. Clearly
many of the targetted people were curious and inquisitive to know what was
in the TEXT FILE entitled "LOVE-LETTER-FOR-YOU.TXT", especially since it
came from a KNOWN SENDER.
If Outlook had been written/reviewed by somebody with in-depth knowledge of
the problem domain, then that somebody would probably have figured that the
default settings conspired to form a security hole, and the product would
never have shipped in it's original form. But because Microsoft appears to
employ only kids who just know a programming language and an API very well
(and nothing else), this didn't happen.
Finally, it doesn't concern me that you do not think Outlook is the problem.
What does concern me is that Microsoft issued updates to FIX the problem.
>Amazingly you're the same guys advocating that they use an OS like Linux.
>Gee.
I wonder what you'll snip this time.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
