Linux-Advocacy Digest #604, Volume #33 Sat, 14 Apr 01 12:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: A mentality problem of linux programmer. (Ian Pulsford)
Re: To Eric FunkenBush (Ian Pulsford)
Re: Microsoft: Closed source is more secure ("David Utidjian")
Re: Why Linux Is Giving Microsoft a Migraine (Ian Pulsford)
Re: Big Brother Billy does it again! (Ian Pulsford)
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (Chad Everett)
Re: NT is stagnant while Linux explodes (Chad Everett)
Re: What's your take on this story? (Microsoft opening up the MSOffice (Ian
Pulsford)
Re: New virus attacks Linux and MS OS (Richard Thrippleton)
Re: Basement Boy: Aka Aaron Koookis (Ian Pulsford)
Re: Blame it all on Microsoft (Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
Re: Something cool in gcc (mlw)
Re: Impact of Internet (Anne & Lynn Wheeler)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 00:49:53 +1000
From: Ian Pulsford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: A mentality problem of linux programmer.
JLI wrote:
>
> When someone complained in this group that something is too
> difficult to do in Unix, the answer is mostly like "you are too dump",
> or "this guy is paid by Microsoft". This indicates a foundament
> mentality problem of linux programmer. Here is another example
> I encountered recently in our company.
>
> We have just finished a commercial product (a C/C++ SDK) and the
> setup procedure went through quite smoothly. The only thing we don't
> like is that you have to set two or three environment variables
> manually after the setup procedure. So we asked our unix programmer
> whether we can set the environment variables automatically during the
> setup procedure. The answer we got is "if someone doesn't know how
> to set an environment variable on unix, he should not program on
> unix, do they?". I didn't respond directly, but my response would be "if we
> don't know or want to do such simple work for our client, we should not
> sell software, do we?".
No, a better way to do it would be to have a message at the end of the
install that explains clearly what you have to do and also where extra
information on post-install caveats may be found: the README file. Also
make sure your documentation is clear on this point and you make this
clear to your clients personally. You could also include a script that
will makes the relevate changes automgically for each user.
>
> Many Linux programmers are hoppyiest not professionals. They program
> for themself and for fun. There is nothing wrong with that. But if you
> want to do business with software, that won't work.
>
> JLI
That's true of COLA at least.
IanP
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 00:55:54 +1000
From: Ian Pulsford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: To Eric FunkenBush
GreyCloud wrote:
>
> I've found the programs in the book "C++ Primer Plus" by Stephen Prata.
>
> See attached source code.
>
This is almost as long as Kulkis' sig, surely you could have used email
instead.
IanP
------------------------------
From: "David Utidjian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft: Closed source is more secure
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 11:00:29 +0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Ray Chason"
> Ah yes, extensive testing, which is why such glaring boners as the
> ILOVEYOU/Melissa vulnerability got out the door.
I think those vulnerabilities were "designed in"... aren't they embedded
VB scripts in email? If they are then... I am sure MS did extensive
testing to make sure that VB works well with Outlook and all their other
apps. Windows will, as long as they allow the simple opening of an email
to execute arbitrary attached code, allwyas have a security problem by
design. There are other problems but the email viruses seem to get the
most press recently.
-DU-...etc...
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 01:13:25 +1000
From: Ian Pulsford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.singles,alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.hackers.malicious
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is Giving Microsoft a Migraine
Anonymous wrote:
>
> t. max dumbass:
> > Said Anonymous in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 10 Apr 2001 09:44:31
> > -0600;
> > >aaron wrote:
> > >> Anonymous wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >> > > LinuxBear wrote:
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > oh yeah and have you read about the latest fiasco about MS owning all
> > >> > > > intellectual property that passes through their passport system?
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Urgh! revolting
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > --
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic"
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Arthur C. Clarke
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >> > > > LinuxBear
> > >> > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >> > >
> > >> > > What is Microsoft's passport system?
> > >> >
> > >> > bill gates has dissolved the senate. the regional directors now have
> > >> > direct control of thier markets. fear will keep the local systems in line.
> > >> > fear of thier passport system.
> > >> > stopped they must be. on this all depends.
> > >> > viva la resistance!
> > >> > death to videodrome
> > >> > long live the new flesh
> > >>
> > >> If you're a Hotmail user...Mafia$oft was trying to claim full rights
> > >> and ownership to ANYTHING sent to or from a Hotmail account.
> > >>
> > >> That includes copyrighted material.
> > >>
> > >> Send a draft of your novel to your publisher....surprise, Mafia$oft
> > >> claims that it is now THEIR novel.
> > >>
> > >> They changed this SLIGHTLY for American users, but it still stands,
> > >> unchanged, for all Non-American users (including Canadians).
> > >
> > >what part of 'death to videodrome' don't you understand?
> > > jackie 'anakin' tokeman
> >
> > What part is understandable?
>
> you don't know what death is?
There is no spoon!
IanP
--
"Dear someone you've never heard of,
how is so-and-so. Blah blah.
Yours truly, some bozo." - Homer Simpson
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 01:22:15 +1000
From: Ian Pulsford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Big Brother Billy does it again!
Mig wrote:
>
> Dave Martel wrote:
>
> > Here we go again, folks! From the Wall Street Journal:
> >
> > <http://www.canoe.ca/MoneyWSJ/wsj2-dow.html>
>
> [cut]
>
> > There's much more of interest in the article, including MS's claim
> > that the reason they're doing this is to avoid paying a license fee
> > for a higher-quality MP3 encoder. Yeah, sure.
>
> Dont get histeric - its just their software that wont recortd MP3's. Guess
> what - it does not do it today and people still use MP3
>
Exactly, there are dozens of other MP3 recording software packages out
there. If M$ is trying to crush these however, it says something about
Microsoft's media business plans.
IanP
--
"Dear someone you've never heard of,
how is so-and-so. Blah blah.
Yours truly, some bozo." - Homer Simpson
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 14 Apr 2001 10:08:51 -0500
On Sat, 14 Apr 2001 10:58:52 GMT, billh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"T. Max Devlin"
>
>
>> Obviously, everyone whom the Israelites killed. If they killed nobody,
>> I am not sure why you claimed that they had. Nevertheless, your claim
>> that Thou Shalt Not Kill is provided in the Bible or in the faith with
>> some special "out" which absolves killing in war seems entirely
>> unsupported.
>
>Seems?
>
>
Thou shalt not kill is not provided with a special "out". Thou shalt
not kill is not a correct translation as has been pointed out repeatedly
here but you obviously, for the sake of your argument, refuse to believe
it. The accurate translation, of course, is "You shall not murder".
The original Hebrew accurately translates to "murder". Are you suggesting
the less accurate translation you're sticking with: "Thou shalt not kill"
is a ban on killing animals and plants? Those are instances of killing,
but not of murder. Just because you don't want to believe it's the most
accurate translation doesn't mean it ain't.
You'll have people pipe in about how "murder" is not the accurate translation
cause we don't know the original Hebrew or because the translation is
debatable, but these are both not true, and are red herrings:
There are Hebrew manuscripts from which the accuracy of the translations
of the Septuagint can be determined. The "Nash Papyrus" (c. 150 BCE)
from Egypt contains Deuteronomy and the Qumran Scroll (250-200 BCE) also
does. Not only do these texts verify the Hebrew directly, but they supply
overwhelming support for the accuracy of the Septuagint.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT is stagnant while Linux explodes
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 14 Apr 2001 10:13:41 -0500
On Sat, 14 Apr 2001 09:41:38 GMT, Kelsey Bjarnason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <9b3a03$5cb$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> "Todd" <todd<remove>[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >
>> > "667 Neighbor of the Beast" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >
>> >> If with that built-in guarantee, they still cannot cut it. Linux's
>> >> momentum is astounding; NT's is basically flat!
>> >
>> > This is true, however. Linux is able to take hold where the cost of the
>OS
>> > is significant. For most big corporations, the cost of the OS is small
>in
>> > comparison to labor costs...
>>
>> TCO for any Unix is small compared to Windows (what an absurd name for
>server
>> systems). Last year alone there were over 100 security bugs found in
>Microsoft
>> SW. The worst offender was IIS. Windows admins just can't keep up. Each
>new
>> service pack introduces yet more bugs. The number of security bugs found
>in
>> Unix systems is tiny compared to Microsoft and patches are normally made
>> available far faster than patches from Microsoft.
>
>The number of bugs _found_ is less than in Windows... but is the number of
>bugs that _exist_ less? What are the comparitive number of Unix systems
>(server and client) in use compared to the number of Windows systems (server
>and client) in use? Doesn't Windows clock in with just a few more
>installations?
>
>This strikes me as akin to the argument "Since New York had 8 murders last
>year, but Podunk only had 2, Podunk is safer" - ignoring the niggling little
>detail that Podunk, having a population of 2,000 compared to New York's 8
>million, makes it 1,000 times *more* likely you'll get murdered in Podunk.
>
And, or course, if you're going to compare Windows bugs with Unix bugs,
then you need to compare Windows 3.1, Windows 95, Windows CE, Windows 98,
Windows 98 2nd edition, Windows NT SP1 SP2 SP3 SP4 SP5 SP6, Windows 2K Pro,
Windows 2K Server, Windows NT Server, etc. bugs with Unix bugs.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 01:38:14 +1000
From: Ian Pulsford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What's your take on this story? (Microsoft opening up the MSOffice
Jan Johanson wrote:
>
> "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Hi Jan,
> >
> > > It's not as the article makes it sound, you CAN output to XML but the
> > > _native" file formats are still binary.
> > >
> > > In Microsoft Office XP, XML is implemented in several ways:
> > >
> > > a.. You can save Microsoft Excel 2002 spreadsheets and Microsoft
> > > Access
> > > 2002 database tables as XML.
> > > b.. Microsoft Outlook 2002 views are defined in XML. You can modify
> > > these
> > > view formats in Visual Basic for Applications (VBA) code.
> > > c.. When you save a document from Office XP as a Web page, its output
> > > contains XML for rich display and editing fidelity.
> > > d.. Smart tags, a new feature in Office XP, can be embedded as XML
> > > inside
> > > of Microsoft Word 2002 documents, Excel 2002 spreadsheets, Outlook 2002
> > > e-mail (when Word 2002 is enabled as your e-mail editor) or Web pages
> > > (when Office XP or one of the individual applications just mentioned) is
> > > installed on your computer. Reusable smart tags can also be written in
> > > XML and distributed to multiple Office XP users. From:
> > > http://msdn.microsoft.com/office/xp/xml.asp and my own experience with
> > > the product (RTM, not beta)
> >
> > Thanks Jan,
> >
> > I'd like to find out whether OfficeXP's XML output is as 100% capable as
> > the binary format? (i.e. not just limited functionality such as RTF). For
> > example, if Office gives a warning that you will lose functionality saving
> > in this format it won't be very popular. Is there an option to save as XML
> > by default?
> >
> > I'd also like to see the XML generated by a complicated Word document (say
> > a thesis). Anyone have any sources or care to post one online?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Adam
>
> I don't think you read carefully - the answer is going to be no.
>
> Besides, XML is terribly space inefficient - if MS did switch to pure XML
> output you guys would simply change your bashing to then say a) oh, so they
> changed their format AGAIN and b) oh, their files are so big and load so
> slowly!
That' not fair on Adam Warner, he's one of the more sane COLA posters.
IanP
--
"Dear someone you've never heard of,
how is so-and-so. Blah blah.
Yours truly, some bozo." - Homer Simpson
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Thrippleton)
Subject: Re: New virus attacks Linux and MS OS
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 16:26:52 +0000
In article <9b3bmo$7do$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Todd wrote:
>
>"Peter Köhlmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Josie wrote:
>> > Hey, I read over the weekend about a new virus that can get at MS AND
>> > Linux. It doesn't sound like it is too potent, but I thought it was
>> > pretty interesting.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>http://linux.ittoolbox.com/browse.asp?c=LINUXNews&r=%2Fnews%2Fdispnews%2Easp
>%3Fi%3D36841
>> >
>> > Has anybody else heard anything about it?
>> >
>> Yep, it´s more of an design study.
>> In addition, it won´t be able to do much of harm to a properly
>> administered linux system
>
>The same goes if a Windows 2000 is 'properly administered'.
>
>The problem is that, most users DO NOT set up user accounts, policies, and
>security on their home machines.
>
>Most Linux users that I know boot into root and stay there. The easiest of
>all attack is to somehow get the user to launch an executable (maybe it was
>titled Quake 3 preview or something).
>
>Then, silently, install you virus without letting the user know.
>
Slightly cruel I know, but... some people deserve everything they
get. You can protect all you want against malicious cracks, 'sploits and
viruses, but defending against terminally stupid users (people who login as
root all the time) is pretty damn tough.
>The fact is, most virus writers target windows... and it costs the economy
>money. It also has the effect of making Windows OSes better over time...
Oh, when did MS lose VBScript support in Office, IE and Outlook?
First I've heard of it.
Richard
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 01:44:44 +1000
From: Ian Pulsford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Basement Boy: Aka Aaron Koookis
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> Ian Pulsford wrote:
> >
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> > >
> > > This is why the army, although thermal imaging is available, STILL
> > > camoflauges all equipment, because only SOME opponents have thermal
> > > vision equipment.
> > >
> > > For the others, who don't have it...the camo works just fine.
> > >
> >
> > I can't wait until we all have thermal imaging gear coz then we can all
> > paint our tanks florescent techno-swirls. Kkaki is so drab.
> >
>
> Aussies are still using khaki???
>
> Agh...for those of us used to seeing soldiers in camo uniforms, your
> guys would stick out like sore thumbs.
Actually we use something we call "rabbit ears", shades of green and
khaki to match our bushland in shapes like rabbit ears or leaves. Seems
to work pretty well.
IanP
--
"Dear someone you've never heard of,
how is so-and-so. Blah blah.
Yours truly, some bozo." - Homer Simpson
------------------------------
From: Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Blame it all on Microsoft
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 12:09:10 +0200
Dennis O'Connor wrote:
> "Peter da Silva" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote ...
>> Aaron, old bean, would you mind editing the messages you're replying to
>> just a tad? Thanks.
>
> Is it just me, or is "Aaron R Kulkis" on anyone else's
> send-resume-direct-to-trashcan list ? Between the
> crossposting, the rants, and the abusive .sig, there
> is no way I'd agree to hiring him, no matter how smart
> he may be or may think he is.
>
I have killfiled that jerk at the suck-stage, since I use offline-reading.
I don´t have any use for postings with less than 2% of A R Kookis content
and the rest is *not* quoted properly, adding to that his insane Sig.
I don´t have any use for postings from someone lying to us that he
compiled a different OS-string into his news-reader.
That guy is the biggest asshole here on cola, Chad Myers is just a fine
young man in comparison. And that guy is already bad enough.
Peter
--
The social dynamics of the net are a direct consequence of the fact
that nobody has yet developed a Remote Strangulation Protocol.
Larry Wall
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Something cool in gcc
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 11:51:47 -0400
Chronos Tachyon wrote:
>
> On Sat 14 Apr 2001 06:19, mlw wrote:
>
> [Snip]
> >
> > It amazes me that people draw such a distinction between C++ from C.
> >
> > function(char *str)
> > {
> > printf("%s\n", str);
> > }
> >
> > The above function is perfectly valid C++ code. It is also perfectly valid
> > C code.
> >
> [Snip]
>
> You are incorrect here. That code is neither legal C nor legal C++, but
> for different reasons. In C, if you don't explicitly declare a return type
> for a function, it defaults to returning an int; the function above has no
> return statement, so you're returning an undefined value (most likely,
> either the return value of printf, or 0). In C++, not declaring a return
> type is illegal.
Oops, yes, that is right. I was not talking about the return type, I was
talking about the structure of the function, lacking the return was a typo.
(The compiler would have gotten it)
void function(char *str)
{
printf("%s\n", str);
}
How's that? It is a valid function in both C and C++.
One need not go overboard with iostreams and crap like that in C++ if they
desire not.
My point is C++ is a superset of C.
> --
> Chronos Tachyon
> Guardian of Eristic Paraphernalia
> Gatekeeper of the Region of Thud
> [Reply instructions: My real domain is "echo <address> | cut -d. -f6,7"]
--
I'm not offering myself as an example; every life evolves by its own laws.
========================
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.arch,comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.object,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.theory,misc.invest.stocks
Subject: Re: Impact of Internet
Reply-To: Anne & Lynn Wheeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: Anne & Lynn Wheeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 15:56:54 GMT
"2 + 2" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> We have seen the rise of the internet, especially beginning with its web
> phase.
>
> The tremendous web bubble, now collapsing at least partially, can be
> attributed to speculation, etc.
>
> There is no question that, aside from a frenzy to build web sites, the
> computer industry as a whole ITSELF has converged on the web, making
> tremendous investments in web-related technologies.
>
> Now is a time for sober second thoughts.
>
> In particular, how should the value of the web be analyzed in terms of
> technology, societal impact, etc.?
random ref:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/aadsm5.htm#asrn2
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/aadsm5.htm#asrn3
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/internet.htm
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001d.html#42
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001b.html#50
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/99.html#197
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000e.html#0
--
Anne & Lynn Wheeler | [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/
------------------------------
** 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 by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
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
******************************
