Linux-Advocacy Digest #237, Volume #30 Tue, 14 Nov 00 18:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (The Ghost In The Machine)
I WANT WIN2k drivers! ("steve erntner")
Re: OT: Could someone explain C++ phobia in Linux? (Mig)
Re: NT/2000 true multiuser? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum (Goldhammer)
Re: The Sixth Sense (.)
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? ("Mike Ruskai")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Pascal Haakmat)
Debian Sells Stale Beef (Ioi Lam)
Re: Of course, there is a down side... ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: The Sixth Sense (.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[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 16:41:16 -0500
Les Mikesell wrote:
>
> "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:dPjP5.9504$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > It is a bug in Exchange, if you ask me
> >
> > Exchange does more than just email. Besides, where does sendmail keep it's
> > mail before the client downloads it? In each person's home drive? No, of
> > course not it keeps it in a central mail store until the user downloads
> > it via POP3 or IMAP
>
> Sendmail commits a copy to disk in a file by itself before replying to
> the sender that it has been accepted. Then it turns local delivery
> over to the local delivery program which is configurable of course.
> The usual configuration for local delivery on small systems stores
> each user's messages in a separate file under a common directory.
> This scales better than a single large file of course but still has
> limits. Medium sized systems often configure to make local delivery
> go to a file in the user's home directory, or each message in its own
> file under a directory there.
>
> > > -- and it speaks volumes for how people in Redmond think.
> >
> > Not really, it speaks volumes to your ignorance.
> >
> > -Chad
>
> Enlighten us then: how do you restore one user's email from a system
> backup if all users are stored in one big file?
Step one: Plead with Microsoft for a solution for their pollution...
Step two: Listen to Microsoft tell you that it can't be done
Step three: Find someone who has a clue...
>
> Les Mikesell
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
http://directedfire.com/greatgungiveaway/directedfire.referrer.fcgi?2632
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 21:48:07 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Aaron R. Kulkis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Mon, 13 Nov 2000 22:53:59 -0500
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Christopher Smith wrote:
>>
>> "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:hvLO5.16178$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >
>> > "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:8ue4go$69q$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Personally I believe the important sacrifices have already been made. I
>> > > doubt many of the people who were burnt the first time will allow it to
>> > > happen again. Lessons learnt hard are lessons learnt well.
>> >
>> > 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.
>>
>> > 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 ?
>
>does rm SUCCESSFULLY remove files without the permission of someone
>who is AUTHORIZED to do so?
>
The authorization, however, depends on the directory containing the file
(in most cases), rather than the privileges on the file itself.
There is an exception if the directory has the 't' flag (01000) set.
This is mostly a detail.
Mind you, I haven't looked at this in awhile. It's certainly a
darned sight more protected than Win98 or WinMe, though. :-)
[rest snipped]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: "steve erntner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: I WANT WIN2k drivers!
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 07:51:04 +1000
how hard is it to get drivers for aztech sound cards???
all i want are win2k drivers for em...but do they exist? nooooooooooooooooo
im about to break down and cry
------------------------------
From: Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OT: Could someone explain C++ phobia in Linux?
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 22:53:15 +0100
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Nov 2000 09:00:03 -0500, mlw wrote:
> >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.
>
> I couldn't agree more with this. Perhaps it's the hardcore traditionalists
> and/or luddites who simply want to resist anything new.
>
> But to me, the absurdity of it all reaches a climax when people start
> choosing C for OO programming. I can see why they might have wanted to
> implement GTK+ in C, but I don't see why they are pushing C bindings
> instead of bindings for OO languages like C++, Python, Eiffel, etc.
OO has nothing to do with the language chosen... its more a way of
thinking its also a methodology. The language is not that important
allthough it would be practical to use one that is OO or Object based so
that you could reuse your object model though the entire process.
Is the toolkit really that important? Basiclly it implements just the UI..
you could have your functionallity in librarries coded in C or am i wrong
here?
--
Cheers
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NT/2000 true multiuser?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 22:03:39 +0000
The Great Suprendo wrote:
> Punch cards were probably routine there at one point as well. What sort
> of routine are you talking of ?
I think you have your eras muddled. Punch cards were way before then.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Goldhammer)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 22:22:52 GMT
On 14 Nov 2000 10:26:42 GMT,
Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>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. (I know it's difficult for a Windows advocate
>to understand,
As I mentioned earlier, for many MS users, the default
subconscious presumption is: 'an OS is something that
runs on an x86'. Time and again, this presumption
surfaces...
--
Don't think you are. Know you are.
------------------------------
From: . <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 11:25:22 +1300
> > If the filesystem had general purpose links and symlinks as unix
> > has had for eons, you wouldn't need the limited-function concept
> > of shortcuts.
>
> Limited function? Shortcuts are great!
"How dare you burden and confuse me with facts! Let me restate my
opinion"
> > No, that's the point of making the script able to invoke it's interpreter
> > with the command line flags it needs.
>
> How do you find you thousands of scripts? Through ls right? Archaic.
How do you find the name of the command to change file attributes?
If you're a thinking, learning, adaptable human being, you probably read
about ATTRIB somewhere, and now you remember it.
> > Downright handy. And any time the typing becomes cumbersome you
> > just write a higher level script to invoke the frequently used
> > combinations with a single command.
>
> When typing gets cumbersome you type more. Yuck. Old fashioned. I can't see
> this catching on for normal desktop users.
Typing is a requirement for using a computer for any useful function.
Your users need to write documents, you need to type script commands and
program code... anyone who discounts Linux because it uses the keyboard
is just not making sense.
> > Programs are typically installed for all users.
>
> For anyone? Even people you don't want using them? Yuck.
Well, sure, if you don't set permissions/policies on things, any user can
execute any app on your 2k system too.
> > Huh? I am able to permute combinations and options, unlike
> > a click-it-or-not icon. I could do a thousand different
> > things to a text file with short, concise commands.
>
> Sure. But how do you choose which script to run? ls?
You run the script or command appropriate to the job... if you don't know
what a command does, on ANY system, why would you run it? On a real
system you would check the online docs first too.
> > I don't think so. It maps very well to the
> > way we think and type.
>
> A minority. Thats why Unix never made it to the desktop either.
Only a minority because thinking people are a minority. Unix is for
people who want to use their brains and their machines, Windows is for
people who are too impatient to learn what they're doing and thus need
their hands held.
Probably quite a useful purpose Windows serves... employ hundreds of
thousands of people to hold the hands of the millions of idiots.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: "Mike Ruskai" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: "Mike Ruskai" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 22:31:54 GMT
On Tue, 14 Nov 2000 06:54:50 GMT, Marty wrote:
>Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>
>> http://uptime.netcraft.com/hammer/accuracy.html#whichos
>>
>> "Additionally, NT4 uptimes cycle back to zero after 49.7 days, and give
>> timestamps exactly as if the machine had been rebooted at this precise
>> point"
>
>OS/2 has the same "feature". I've seen it happen several times on my own
>system.
That's system uptime. Surely a web server can keep its own counter. And
if the web server isn't up, the system (as a web server) isn't up.
--
- Mike
Remove 'spambegone.net' and reverse to send e-mail.
------------------------------
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 22:34:22 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Curtis wrote:
[snip]
>> >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.
>
>Yes.
>
>> 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.
>
>Yes.
>
>> 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.
>
>The problem with guys like you is that you love to stand outside looking
>in, and criticize how MS designs applications for ignorant users to
>meaningfully use and still remain largely ignorant. Find any other
>application so designed for ignorant users and you'll see similar
>problems, yet these other apps are not written by MS. The usual silly
>answer to this is that these developers outside MS are following the MS
>way. The amusing part is that these very developers dislike MS. If you're
>going to develop for the ignorant, these issues will come up. The
>solution is to educate to avoid these problems. OS's and applications for
>the computer wary will never have these problems.
To some extent, yes. But then the OS must allow for the user to educate
himself -- not put up huge warning signs that say "DO NOT ACCESS THIS
DIRECTORY".
>It's quite amusing to watch the techies criticize and if one were to put
>them in MS's place they'd be doing pretty much the same things to make
>the ignorant, in the privacy of their homes and not offices with helpful
>sysadmins hovering around, use their machines with minimal effort.
Much of the ILOVEYOU press coverage focused on the monetary damage inflicted
by the worm on BUSINESS. To me, that says that the system is vulnerable even
with "helpful sysadmins hovering around".
In fact it could be argued that it was exactly in business environments that
the ILOVEYOU worm flourished most, and not in the private home. After all,
the address book at the office is likely to be larger than the address book
at home.
>> 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.
>
>What about quoting?
Quoted text should not be wrapped. Only new text should be wrapped. When
replying, Outlook wraps all text regardless. Also, the cursor is placed on
top, where arguably it should be on the bottom.
>> 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.
>
>Why? They cater to ignorant users that use their machines at home. It is
>*you* who aren't familiar with that domain. MS has been dealing with that
>domain for close to 10 years. Ignorant users in the privacy of their
>homes, comprise a very different domain when compared to the same
>ignorant users in a controlled corporate environment where their machines
>are administered by competent sysadmins and where help is close by.
Yet those controlled corporate environments fell prey to ILOVEYOU just like
everybody else.
>> The "success" of ILOVEYOU has very little to do with ignorant, stupid and
>> complacent users, as you suggest.
>
>It has EVERYTHING to do with them.
>
>> 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.
>
>But this is exactly the point.
How can you fault a user for making the effort to open a TEXT FILE from a
KNOWN SENDER? How is this ignorant, stupid and complacent? Why is the fault
not in the fact that the file appeared to be a text file, or in the fact
that it came from a known sender, or in the (apparently) vague wording of
the warning message about executing attachments, or in the fact that
attachments can be executed at all?
>> 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.
>
>And how would they do that and not let the ignorant user become
>frustrated and introducing extra learning and concepts to confuse the
>user who apparently doesn't need to learn anything? I am yet to hear a
>good *workable* solution to that from any of you during this discussion.
>I keep hearing technocratic, competent user based solutions that simply
>will not work in an ignorant *home user* setting. I'd sure love to hear
>your brilliant solution.
Just disable extension hiding and the ability to execute attachments. Why is
that so hard? What do extension hiding and the ability to execute
attachments add that make it so much easier for the home user?
>> 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.
>
>What an obnoxious statement. :-) They're however, the successful ones,
>while UNIX and like great professional OS's remain in the deep fringes. I
>wonder why that is?
Because the deep fringes are where it's at :)
>Answer ... [insert your conspiracy theory here, and never that MS
>actually has good insight into what their users want and what they
>respond to or prefer.]
Well, you could say the same about Mac Donalds. Still I don't eat there
often. I see no problem with that.
>> Finally, it doesn't concern me that you do not think Outlook is the problem.
>
>I didn't expect you to.
>
>> What does concern me is that Microsoft issued updates to FIX the problem.
>
>That's an inevitable reaction on MS's part which should make them
>realised that they cannot yield to the ignorant as they've been doing. It
>has its repercussions. There's a subtle but fundamental difference in our
>impression of Outlook and how it deals with attachments.
Again, I fail to see the added value of hiding extensions and being able to
execute attachments. I just don't recall ever receiving an executable
attachment. As for extensions -- the Mac seems to do fine without them.
So I don't see how those features "yield to the ignorant". Hiding extensions
just covers up some historically bad design, while being able to execute
attachments is nothing but a marginally useful feature.
>If MS's mission is to make Outlook easy to use by ignorant novices
>without them having to learn much then they're doing fine. The problem is
>that security becomes an issue. MS is using the glitter on the surface
>principle to lure users to their platform. The glitter is "you can use my
>OS without learning any complicated stuff". However, what lies beneath is
>poor security as a direct consequence.
>
>If MS's mission is to make Outlook secure to use, then the ignorant
>novices have some learning to do. The two situations cannot and will not
>ever exist for the foreseeable future. MS realized this all too long ago.
>They also realize that people prefer not having to learn how to do
>anything and to just do it. They realised that if they could improve on
>ease of use they could lure users to their OS. This has been central to
>their very successful development model.
I'll concede that there is always some conflict of interest between
ease-of-use and security. The problem with Microsoft's approach to
ease-of-use is that it makes learning so difficult. They have created a
system that is completely opaque.
I do not agree with your contention that this is the inevitable consequence
of making something easy to use. I think the Mac OS demonstrates pretty
elegantly that this need not necessarily be the case (although it is also
going that way).
Now, a completely opaque and tightly integrated system is fine, as long as
it works. But computers simply have not reached that "utility" level yet,
and I doubt if they ever will.
>Many of you skeptics choose to
>credit their success to good advertising. Yes, it was important, I agree,
>but ease of use and cost (Apples problem) were even more important.
Just so you won't snip everything I've written :), let me state for the
record that I think Microsoft's products are very good in very important
ways, and that this has been a deciding factor in establishing it's dominant
position.
>> >Amazingly you're the same guys advocating that they use an OS like Linux.
>> >Gee.
>>
>> I wonder what you'll snip this time.
>
>It's not the snipping that's the problem.
Funny. :)
------------------------------
From: Ioi Lam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Debian Sells Stale Beef
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 14:28:01 -0800
I wanted to do some PocketLinux development (www.pocketlinux.com) and
they recommended Debian. So I drive down to my local store to get myself
a copy. There is no production date on the box, no version number, no
Linux version, no expiration date. Do they expect their users to be
homeless crack addicts that will put anything down their throat?
So much about the most open Linux distribution on the planet. They are
not even open about when they make the CD.
Well, I bought it anyway because I feared the PocketLinux stuff will go
up in flames on other Linux distributions. I bought a RedHat box as well
just in case (and RedHat tells me what its version is!)
Well, Debian, if you think you're promoting Linux, wake up! That's not
gonna work if all your paying customers are either zealots or suckers.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[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 17:32:15 -0500
Les Mikesell wrote:
>
> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > > I mean that the 3-set combination lets you describe permission for
> > > any group that you create. If you arbitrarily want to describe
> > > permissions that don't match a group, ACLs let you do it.
> >
> > Why would I want to be limited to groups?
>
> Why would you not create groups to match group activities? Using
> the simple facility means the file system does not need to include
> the overhead of arbitrary checks. There are, however projects
> to add filesystems with ACL's to Linux. I don't know if any are
> released yet.
In 6 years of doing administration...most of that time in
Fortune-50 businesses....I have NEVER had a need for ACL's.
The only places that need ACL's are government intelligence
organizations.
When their specification for file access was written, ACL's
didn't even exist yet...effectively making it illegal to put
any classified information on computers until a solution (ACL's)
was invented.
>
> > > > By talking about tighter control I'm talking about the ability to
> grant
> > > > different file permissions to individuals or groups to much higher
> > degree
> > > > than I can on linux.
> > >
> > > That isn't 'tighter'. It is just the ability to let your permissions
> > > diverge
> > > from your group definitions.
> >
> > Which is highly useful all too often.
>
> Have you run out of names for groups?
>
> Les Mikesell
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
http://directedfire.com/greatgungiveaway/directedfire.referrer.fcgi?2632
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: . <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 11:37:33 +1300
> > Show me a machine without IE that's vulnerable to ILOVEYOU.
> > It may be OE that handles attachments, but it's the IE 'technology' that
> > allowed the problem in the first place. HTML-mail, followed by MS
> > insecure scripting languages in HTML, followed by a lot of surprised
> > people.
>
> ILOVEYOU has nothing whatsoever to do with either a) IE or b) HTML-mail.
My mistake, I don't know the specifics of ILOVEYOU as I never encountered
it. I assumed it operated on the same bugs that so many other virii have
taken advantage of. So replace ILOVEYOU with the virus of your choice
that IS related to the above problems, and the point is still valid.
Is ILOVEYOU another one of the fireworks/south park attachment clones
instead? If it's an attachment the user has to run manually, it's not a
virus...
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
