On Sat, 24 Mar 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Mar 1981, Wolfgang Lenerz wrote:
>
> > Most people on this list have access to a PC, are another machine
> > (UnixBox) which already has Intrernet progs, else they wouldn't be
> > on this list. I, for myself, use a PC. Somebody on this list recently
> > suggested that a Browser under QDOS/SMSQ/E doesn't make
> > much sqense, since the people already on this list wiould be better
> > of using their native browser, rather than yours under QPC under
> > Windows.
>
> IIRC that person said, that a Browser under QDOS/SMSQ/E makes much sense
I meant "makes _not_ much sense", of course.
Claus
> if it's run on a Wintel machine. For people that solely have a QL a
> browser makes a lot of sense.
>
> > This is a sensible argument, but I don't agree with it, for one simple
> > erason: I don't TRUST PC browsers (nor email programs). They are
> > often full of security holes, and are much too large, and often do
> > things behind my back which I don't know about.
>
> You may be right that you cannot trust Windoze or some of its programs.
> But what is a "trusted" SMSQ/E browser worth, if the data flows on the
> basis of QPC and the underlying "untrusted" M$ Windoze?
>
> > This, hopefully, won't happen with a QL browser - but to be sure of
> > that, I'd like the source code so that when something "interesting"
> > happens, I could see for myself...
> >
> > Wolfgang
>
> Bye
> Claus
> ______________________________________________________________________
> powered by Q60 * Motorola 68060 / 80 MHz * 80 MB RAM * 30 GB Hard Disk
>
>
