Linux-Advocacy Digest #447
Linux-Advocacy Digest #447, Volume #26 Wed, 10 May 00 20:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Here is the solution (josco)
Re: My question has still not been answered.Dance..Dance...Dance... ("John W.
Stevens")
Re: My question has still not been answered.Dance..Dance...Dance... ("John W.
Stevens")
Re: Linux will remain immune (Eric Leblanc)
Re: How to properly process e-mail (Andres Soolo)
Re: Why Solaris is better than Linux
Re: The Dream World of Linux Zealots ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software ("Brent")
Re: This is Bullsh^%T!!! (Alan Boyd)
Re: Browsers and e-mail (Christopher Browne)
Re: CVS and Windows (Christopher Browne)
Re: What have you done? (Christopher Browne)
Re: This is Bullsh^%T!!! (mlw)
Re: How to properly process e-mail (Grant Fischer)
Re: German Govt says Microsoft a security risk (Christopher Browne)
From: josco [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Here is the solution
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 15:24:10 -0700
On Thu, 11 May 2000, Todd wrote:
Challenge:
Give me just *one* MS undocumented API call, that could not be done with
their *free* downloadable SDK?
Give me just *one* reason it even matters.
There are no undocumented APIs - there are undocumented APIs BUT
Credibility = 0.0
MS rocks - back and forth on a series of critical issues thus it has no
credibility SO who cares to keep track of the lie of the week. The story
will change and MS will defeat themselves again and again.
http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/00/05/biztech/articles/11soft.html
"The public has reaped substantial benefits from
Microsoft's development of Windows and other
software products," the company said. "Many of these
benefits would not have been possible but for
Microsoft's unified structure, which enables Microsoft to
conceive and implement new ideas that span operating
systems and applications."
...
In the recent past, Microsoft's leaders have said there
there was a "church and state" separation within the
company between the Windows group and the others
that develop applications programs.
--
From: "John W. Stevens" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: My question has still not been answered.Dance..Dance...Dance...
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 16:18:12 -0600
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's not what the Linux Journal article this month says. It goes on
for pages explaining how to share a printer. And BTW they give
examples with SWAT also.
No way is it as easy as WIndows...
Not even close.
You say that, 'cause you don't understand that the contexts are
different.
Stop attacking me and provide a step by step procedure.
1) Put CD into CD-ROM drive.
2) Run configuration tool (which reads machine configuration data from
CD).
Done!
Yeesh! Obviously, you don't understand that the difference here is:
canned configurations.
On a Linux box, using the supplied Linux documentation, you can create
your own configurations.
On a Windows box, you used the default ("canned") configuration, but you
can do the exact same thing under Linux . . . use a canned
configuration.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
From: "John W. Stevens" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: My question has still not been answered.Dance..Dance...Dance...
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 16:21:14 -0600
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What kind of an idiotic answer is that?
People want to share internet connections.
People want to share resources (printers).
People want some kind of security protection.
And people would like it to be simple to set up.
You are saying that this is not an important set of items?
Sure it is! Of course, until MS supplied this, Windows advocates used
to argue that this was simply not stuff that the "average computer user
wanted, or needed".
Suddenly, now it is . . . strange, eh?
Windows makes this extremely easy and as of yet nobody has shown me
precisely how Linux is at least as easy.
Linux is at least this easy. In many ways, it is even easier, since the
same process you use to install "canned" defaults, can be used to
regularly check those defaults.
A half answer like "Samba comes installed" is not an answer.
So again:
How about an answer.
Already given in another reply to you. Look there.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eric Leblanc)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux will remain immune
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 22:47:06 GMT
On Wed, 10 May 2000 15:49:04 GMT, Perry Pip [EMAIL
Linux-Advocacy Digest #442
Linux-Advocacy Digest #442, Volume #26 Wed, 10 May 00 13:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: What have you done? (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (WickedDyno)
Re: Microsoft: STAY THE FUCK OFF THE NET!!! (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (WickedDyno)
Re: news: Oracle $199 web device, runs on linux, not windows (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (WickedDyno)
Re: news: Oracle $199 web device, runs on linux, not windows (JEDIDIAH)
Re: news: Oracle $199 web device, runs on linux, not windows (JEDIDIAH)
Re: This is Bullsh^%T!!! (JEDIDIAH)
Re: This is Bullsh^%T!!! (JEDIDIAH)
Re: This is Bullsh^%T!!! (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Malicious scripts on Unix (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (aflinsch)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (JEDIDIAH)
Re: How to properly process e-mail (Seán Ó Donnchadha)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Karel Jansens)
Re: How to properly process e-mail (JEDIDIAH)
Re: This is Bullsh^%T!!! ("Nik Simpson")
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: What have you done?
Date: 10 May 2000 11:07:02 -0500
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Full Name [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I can tell you without a shadow of a doubt that the Linux box is a
piece of rubbish. I would get rid of it in a heartbeat. We purchased
it as a cheap alternative to an Alpha box for number crunching.
Errr, Linux and Alpha are not alternatives to each other.
NT simply murders any of the Unix box's when it comes to file and
print serving. My primary function is as an Oracle DBA. I don't have
the time to spend a month patching a Linux box.
You don't have to patch. You can use the same 'reinstall from
scratch' strategy that you use with NT. Except that with NT
you still have to reboot and reinstall the service packs afterwards
and reboot again anyway since you can't get an up-to-date NT
distribution.
I don't have time to
waste configuring Samba for file and print serving when I can get
better and faster performance from NT.
I'm curious about the relative configurations here. Is the Samba
server providing print filtering where the NT box doesn't. Printing
to parallel/serial ports or network destinations?
I'm afraid I have better
things to do then waste time vi'ing smb.conf, thinking about group
permission's, setting umasks and musing over s bits when I can achieve
more flexible and faster file sharing in two minutes with NT's access
control lists.
Odd, vi is much faster than mousing through a GUI, and once you
get a share set up the way you want as a template it is extremely
fast to cut and past a copy with a few modifications as opposed
to having to repeat each step.
You want to secure an NT file/print server? Easy. Delete the TCP/IP
protocol and run a non-routable protocol such as IPX. To achieve the
same level of security with a Unix box you would need to spend a week
wrapping all the TCP ports.
I guess you did say you had 5 boxes. Most places that need a
network need routing.
Any of you people done any programming? A novice programmer almost
always starts writing programs which read and write text files. As
their expertise increases they move on to binary files. Unix is a
novice operating system which reads and writes text files.
/etc/passwd is laughable.
Experienced programmers have generally used an assortment of CPU
types where binary files turn out to be non-interchangable. Have
you ever tried to migrate a large number of passwords from a system
that stores everything in binary to another vendor's product?
Unix's ugo - rwx permissions are simply inadequate for a modern
computing environment.
In rare cases. Can you give a concrete example of one?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
From: WickedDyno [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 12:10:41 -0400
In article 391985be$1$obot$[EMAIL PROTECTED], Bob Germer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 05/10/2000 at 01:48 PM,
Joe Ragosta [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
ROTFLMAO.
So all they had to do was walk 3,000 miles carrying a year's supply of
food on their backs...
If they lived in Hong Kong, all they had to do was board a boat.
Even if they lived 3,000 miles from the nearest border without the wall,
why would they have to carry a year's supply of food? You sound like a
typical wintroll.
LOL! Joe Ragosta is a wintroll? Now I've seen everything!
--
| Andrew Glasgow [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
| SCSI is *NOT* magic. There are *fundamental technical |
|
Linux-Advocacy Digest #441
Linux-Advocacy Digest #441, Volume #26 Wed, 10 May 00 12:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Salvador Peralta)
Re: How to properly process e-mail (Nico Coetzee)
Re: Linux will remain immune (Eric Leblanc)
CVS and Windows (Nico Coetzee)
Re: This is Bullsh^%T!!! (Perry Pip)
Re: Linux will remain immune (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (abraxas)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (abraxas)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (abraxas)
Re: Here is the solution (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: news: Oracle $199 web device, runs on linux, not windows (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: German Govt says Microsoft a security risk (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Linux will remain immune (Perry Pip)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Bob Germer)
Re: Built in Virus Scanners! ("Mike")
Re: Linux will remain immune (JEDIDIAH)
Re: CVS and Windows (Bob Hauck)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Eric Bennett)
Re: Linux will remain immune (JEDIDIAH)
Re: CVS and Windows ("Mike")
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (WickedDyno)
From: Salvador Peralta [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 08:19:04 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
He then goes on to explain how it is an unfair advantage. It allowed
them to build features on their office suite of products (as an example)
that were not open to their competitors, and enabled them to write code
that was deliberately harmful to the proper functioning of competitors
products on windows machines.
Furthermore, he summarizes by saying "Their use of undocumented functions
shows that Microsoft applications developers have access to information on
Windows Internals. But is this really such an unfair advantage?"
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
--
Salvador Peralta
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.la-online.com
--
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 17:15:43 +0200
From: Nico Coetzee [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How to properly process e-mail
"Rob S. Wolfram" wrote:
Back in January there was a thread where I mentioned the possibility to
automate processes in Unix via e-mail. As an example I noted a case
where certain attachments were auto-printed. Back then the Winvocates
labeled me "foolish" to auto-print email attachments (possibly triggered
by their envy of lacking such functionality in Windows-based MTA's), so
I had to make it explicit that OF COURSE one does sanity checking before
autoprocessing email (see [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Now Microsoft Outlook offers you *auto-execution* of e-mail content
*without sanity checking*, and Erik Funkenbusch tells us that until
Linux offers this "user-friendlyness" it will never "play in the same
game" as Windows? (mJpQ4.4498$[EMAIL PROTECTED]) I think it's a
good thing not to "play the same game" as Windows. Not for the next
couple of decades.
Cheers,
Rob
--
"Software is like sex; it's better when it's free."
-- Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED]
10/10 !
The fact is that Outlook is very far from user friendly - Too much menu's
and dialog boxes with a sloppy and sometimes to technical help (for the
average end user).
I don't miss Outlook at all...
Nico.
--
==
The following signature was created automatically under Linux:
.
It is far more impressive when others discover your good qualities without
your help.
-- Miss Manners
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eric Leblanc)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux will remain immune
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 15:19:33 GMT
On Wed, 10 May 2000 13:57:40 GMT, Full Name [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ask any experienced programmer what their worst nightmare is and
they'll tell you its debugging and maintaining someone else's code.
This is why the "open source" argument fails.
Nice strawman. And you don't work on someone else's code when
working on a closed source project?
Linux is a classic example of this. Been around for almost a decade
and yet still cannot adequatly perform the functions that closed
source UNIX has had for years.
What's your beef?
E.
--
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 17:20:37 +0200
From: Nico Coetzee [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: CVS and Windows
Q: Does Windows offer something like CVS?
I asked one M$ person at a Technet session which then ignored the
question and proceeded with other questions. After the session I went
to him and it then became clear he did not
Linux-Advocacy Digest #439
Linux-Advocacy Digest #439, Volume #26 Wed, 10 May 00 09:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Peter Ammon)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Bob Germer)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Peter Ammon)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Bob Germer)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Bob Germer)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Bob Germer)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Bob Germer)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (John Poltorak)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Bob Germer)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Bob Germer)
Re: KDE is better than Gnome (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Bob Germer)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software ("Erik Funkenbusch")
From: Peter Ammon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 08:33:44 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bob Germer wrote:
On 05/09/2000 at 11:41 PM,
Peter Ammon [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I believe it was encrypted in both the last beta (which was the first
place it was found) and in the release.
No, it was not encrypted. The error message which displayed when trying to
load the release version on DR-DOS can be found at offset 028DFD in
setup.exe from the retail disk.
According to "The Microsoft File"
"...the way the code was attempting to obfuscate itself was
outrageousSchulman viewed this as a deliberate attempt to thwart
discovery, the sort of thing one expects from a teenager writing a
virus, not from a multi-billion dollar corporation."
Although the error message itself might not have been encrypted, the
code that checks whether DR-DOS was installed probably was.
-Peter
--
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: Bob Germer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 12:31:01 GMT
On 05/09/2000 at 09:39 PM,
Joseph [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Then breaking MS into two would have minor effect. The two companies
can hire between each other and still innovate.
I think the requisite Compliance Committees would prevent that since the
companies will be very closely monitored by DOJ for 10 years.
--
==
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 13
MR/2 Ice 2.19 Registration Number 67
As the court closes in on M$, Lemmings are morphing to Ostrats!
=
--
From: Peter Ammon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 08:35:47 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bob Germer wrote:
On 05/09/2000 at 09:41 PM,
Joseph [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
The message existed but was switched off in the GA version of
Windows3.1.
No, it was just changed. I posted the offset from Setup.exe in another
message.
From "The Microsoft File"
"...Shulman noticed that the renegade code that produced the error
messages in the beta versions of the software was also present in the
final retail versions of Windows 3.1. But wait a minute! A single byte
had been added to prevent the message from appearing on the screen of
the final version shipped to customers."
-Peter
--
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 07:45:44 -0500
jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens) wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
"Erik Funkenbusch" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens) wrote in message
news:L9BY9tzSDwrQ-pn2-d9UNCCpPQ8ZT@localhost...
I have a Windows copy, a DR-DOS copy and a patch disk. What more
evidence do you want? Engraved stone tables?
What evidence I want is documentation by objective sources to back up
your
claim that the retail version of Windows 3.1 wouldn't work with DR-DOS.
What documentation by objective sources can
Linux-Advocacy Digest #448
Linux-Advocacy Digest #448, Volume #26 Wed, 10 May 00 23:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: How to properly process e-mail (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: How to properly process e-mail (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: How to properly process e-mail (JEDIDIAH)
Re: My question has still not been answered.Dance..Dance...Dance... (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Browsers and e-mail (Rolf Rander Naess)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (tholenbot)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Linux Setup ("John Tankersley")
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Alan Boyd)
Re: Microsoft: STAY THE FUCK OFF THE NET!!! (Roger)
Re: Microsoft invents XML! (Marty)
Re: Microsoft invents XML! (Marty)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Alan Boyd)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Joseph)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Joseph)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Joseph)
Re: How to properly process e-mail ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: How to properly process e-mail (CAguy)
Re: This is Bullsh^%T!!! ("Christopher Smith")
Re: This is Bullsh^%T!!! ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Joseph)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How to properly process e-mail
Date: 10 May 2000 19:03:04 -0500
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Seán Ó Donnchadha [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell) wrote:
I use the preview pane, and here's the deal. Attachments aren't even
displayed there. They're accessed through a dropdown menu in the upper
right of the pane. You have to (a) pull down the menu, (b) select the
attachment you want, (c) change the option in the resulting dialog to
"Open it", and (d) hit the OK button.
Does that mean that even there you can't tell the difference between
a gif and a script before executing it?
Huh? How do you get that from what I said?
I didn't, which is why I am still asking questions. Is the difference
between an image and a script obvious in preview mode or not? That
is, can you tell if 'open' is dangereous?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How to properly process e-mail
Date: 10 May 2000 19:06:59 -0500
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Seán Ó Donnchadha [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH) wrote:
Bullshit. Some moron users' mousing hands may effectively be
"auto-double-click", but Outlook doesn't automatically execute
anything, unless you start redefining "automatically".
Outlook blindly hands content off to the shell.
Hogwash. Outlook doesn't hand off anything unless the user (a) asks
for it, then (b) actively issues a confirmation despite a clearly
phrased warning. That's not "blindly", nor "automatically". Look the
words up if you have to.
If it isn't blind, what is the correct procedure for determining
the difference between a safe image and a dangerous script
before pushing the fatal 'open' button?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How to properly process e-mail
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 00:13:37 GMT
On 10 May 2000 22:49:56 GMT, Andres Soolo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Seán Ó Donnchadha [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bullshit. Some moron users' mousing hands may effectively be
"auto-double-click", but Outlook doesn't automatically execute
anything, unless you start redefining "automatically".
I wonder why it is so that most of the ordinary MSW users are
`some moron users'. Could it be they're just misinformed by the OS
or its makers?
It has to be 'easy' and 'secure'.
You're forgetting "functional".
It's apparently included in `secure'.
...nah, just assumed.
The only thing that is missing in 'secure' on the Unix side is
that programs in documents aren't executed. That condition would
likely be far less of a tragedy than a single occurence of an
MS email worm.
--
In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of'|||
a document? --Les Mikesell/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: My question has still not been answered.Dance..Dance...Dance...
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 00:16:04 GMT
On Wed,
Linux-Advocacy Digest #445
Linux-Advocacy Digest #445, Volume #26 Wed, 10 May 00 16:13:08 EDT
Contents:
Re: How to properly process e-mail (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Eugene Fan)
Re: How to properly process e-mail (Seán Ó Donnchadha)
Re: Here is the solution (John Poltorak)
Re: How to properly process e-mail (Seán Ó Donnchadha)
Re: Here is the solution (Peter Ammon)
Re: This is Bullsh^%T!!! ("Nik Simpson")
Re: This is Bullsh^%T!!! (Mr Rupert)
Re: Why Solaris is better than Linux (Tim Kelley)
Re: This is Bullsh^%T!!! (Mr Rupert)
Re: How to properly process e-mail (JEDIDIAH)
Re: This is Bullsh^%T!!! (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (abraxas)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How to properly process e-mail
Date: 10 May 2000 14:00:10 -0500
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Seán Ó Donnchadha [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell) wrote:
What purpose does it serve to propagate the lie about Outlook
auto-executing e-mail attachments? I mean, what purpose other than the
obvious FUD?
What does happen if you have active-x or vbs components in attachments
and you have auto-preview turned on?
I use the preview pane, and here's the deal. Attachments aren't even
displayed there. They're accessed through a dropdown menu in the upper
right of the pane. You have to (a) pull down the menu, (b) select the
attachment you want, (c) change the option in the resulting dialog to
"Open it", and (d) hit the OK button.
Does that mean that even there you can't tell the difference between
a gif and a script before executing it?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
From: Eugene Fan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 18:56:43 GMT
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Eric Bennett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In article 79dS4.389$[EMAIL PROTECTED], "Erik Funkenbusch"
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Main Entry: in·no·va·tion
Pronunciation: "i-n-'vA-shn
Function: noun
Date: 15th century
1 : the introduction of something new
2 : a new idea, method, or device : NOVELTY
- in·no·va·tion·al /-shnl, -sh-nl/ adjective
...which is a pointless definition to use, because under that
definition, anything new is an innovation, even if it is actually
*worse* than what came before. Clearly that is not how the word is
being used by Microsoft... the connotation is that innovation brings
things that are better.
Maybe Microsoft actually wants to leave that ambiguity in the
definition. MS claims integrating Internet Explorer into Windows
without the option to remove it is an example of their "innovation".
Well, by making the Windows shell (Explorer) and IE share code,
your browser problems can now be your OS problem as well.
For example, if you're surfing with IE and come across a page with
buggy javascript, IE may crash, but you may also get a shell
(Explorer) crash. You've seen those, that's when your taskbar
refreshes, all the icons in your tray disappear, and if you were
running Active Desktop, it may now be in Active Desktop Recovery
Mode. Though you can most likely continue working with any open
apps, chances are, you'd save, close, and reboot, not knowing what
else might've been hosed in memory.
If the browser and OS were kept separate, you'd only have to restart
IE after it crashed. All that work spent "innovating" something
that caused more problems instead of fewer, just to squeeze out
Netscape. One more reason for us Windows users to say,
"Thanks a lot, Bill!"
--
Eugene
iMac user: "The iMac's distinctive, elegant, and colorful styling
makes it stand out from a sea of non-descript beige computers and
lets the world know that we 'Think Different' (tm)."
eMachines eOne user: "My computer got outlawed. Who's the real rebel
here?"
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
--
From: Seán Ó Donnchadha [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How to properly process e-mail
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 15:12:33 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH) wrote:
Try not to change the subject. Outlook doesn't auto-execute
It's not changing the subject.
If 'open' means 'execute', then from the point of view
of a naive end user: Outlook does infact auto-execute
attachements.
Bullshit. Some moron users' mousing hands may effectively be
"auto-double-click", but Outlook doesn't automatically execute
anything, unless you start redefining "automatically".
As to your point, since Outlook always warns the user of potential
malice, any confusion on the user's part is the user's
Linux-Advocacy Digest #436
Linux-Advocacy Digest #436, Volume #26 Wed, 10 May 00 06:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Peter Ammon)
Re: KDE is better than Gnome (bob@nospam)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: This is Bullsh^%T!!! (M. Buchenrieder)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Linux will remain immune (2:1)
Re: This is Bullsh^%T!!! (mlw)
Re: This is Bullsh^%T!!! (mlw)
Re: This is Bullsh^%T!!! (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: This is Bullsh^%T!!! (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: This is Bullsh^%T!!! (mlw)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (John Poltorak)
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 04:23:09 -0500
Joseph [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
I think Microsoft has a right to warn people about possible
incompatibilities. There were documented memory management bugs in
DR-DOS
(these were fixed in a patch later).
MS does NOT have a right to warn people of possible incompatibilites.
But we know more. MS documents show the intention of the code was to
disparage DR-DOS. Slam dunk.
They don't have the right to tell people that something doesn't work well
with their product? Why not?
MS documents also show the fact that DR-DOS had problems with Windows.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/991105-23.html
Brad Silverberg emailed Allchin on 27 September 1991:
"drdos has problems running windows today, and I assume will
have more problems in the future."
Allchin replied: "You should make sure it has problems in
the future. :-)",
Now, one could argue that the smiley was meant only as a joke, but even if
you take the comment as real it still proves that Microsoft was aware of
technical reasons why DR-DOS had troubles.
More to the point, Microsoft probably decided the message would probably
create more problems than it solved. Software development is like that.
A
fix is often put in then removed later.
No. It solved no technical problem. Evidence showed the intention was
to disparage DR-DOS.
There were indeed technical issues. Despite MS's attempts to make them even
more difficult. The fact that technical issues existed at all is evidence
to suggest that MS had a right to warn people about DR-DOS. Can you blame
them for wanting to take full advantage of it?
--
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 04:24:36 -0500
Joseph [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
David Steinberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:8fae5b$hv1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
This very quickly brings us back to the question you dodged: if the
display of this error message and the test that caused it were an
innocent, justifiable part of the beta process, why didn't Microsoft
want
anyone to know about it?
I could really care less. The point of the matter is that no such
message
occured in the retail product.
It did occur in the public BETA of windows3.1 and windows 3.1 is a a
retail product.
You're arguing that a beta is a retail product?
The message existed but was switched off in the GA version of
Windows3.1.
If no message is ever displayed in the retail version, the the message does
not exist regardless of the existance of code. What matters is what the
user can see.
--
From: Peter Ammon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 05:18:56 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
If no message is ever displayed in the retail version, the the message does
not exist regardless of the existance of code. What matters is what the
user can see.
Tens of thousands of users had the beta with the activated code.
-Peter
--
From: bob@nospam
Crossposted-To:
Linux-Advocacy Digest #440
Linux-Advocacy Digest #440, Volume #26 Wed, 10 May 00 11:13:08 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: computer viruses on LINUX (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (John Poltorak)
Re: Microsoft invents XML! (rj friedman)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Karel Jansens)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Joe Ragosta)
Re: Microsoft invents XML! (rj friedman)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Joe Ragosta)
Re: linux as Netscape platform (bill davidsen)
Re: Linux will remain immune (Full Name)
Window managers ("Alberto Trillo")
Here is the solution ("Alberto Trillo")
Moderated group ("Alberto Trillo")
Why Solaris is better than Linux ("Lord Williams")
How to properly process e-mail (Rob S. Wolfram)
Re: What have you done? (Tim Kelley)
Re: 10 things with Linux I wish I knew before i jumped (Frank McKenney)
Re: German Govt says Microsoft a security risk (Salvador Peralta)
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 08:19:51 -0500
Bob Germer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:39195d3d$21$obot$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
On 05/09/2000 at 04:20 PM,
Eric Bennett [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
They admitted the absence of a wall as far back as 1995. See James
Gleick's 1995 article on Microsoft, which discusses this subject:
http://www.around.com/microsoft.html
Actually, the admission was in a book which came out well before 1995
called Hard Drive.
Hard Drive was published in 1992.
Mike Maples, in the December 30th, 1991 edition of InfoWorld stated that
there was no such chinese wall.
--
From: Roberto Alsina [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: computer viruses on LINUX
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 13:08:41 GMT
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Streamer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
abraxas wrote:
Gnome may be *decent* for extreme newbies,
That's rather extreme, and I can't agree with this at this time. I
could agree on
previous Gnome releases.
but its stability, reliability and
consistency have been in question since its very first day. And
deservedly
so.
Yes, but at least you aren't telling us that the other alternative,
KDE, is ultra
stable either. I don't know if you've noticed, but lately KDE apps
can't seem to
make up their minds in using qt-1.44 or qt-2.1. Nothing is more
frustrating than not
being able to run one or the other KDE apps simply because you don't
have the
required qtlib version. And it is a pain to keep qt-1.44 qt-2.1
seperated since,
linkwise, they conflict.
Here's how to do it for KDE apps.
Get qt-1.44 sources from TT.
Get qt-2.1 sources from TT.
Untar both under, say, /usr/src.
You will have /usr/src/qt-1.44 and /usr/src/qt-2.1 directories.
Go into each, and build Qt as the README says.
Do nothing else (specially don't do a make install).
Now, whenever you want to compile a KDE app, set QTDIR to the right Qt,
or use the --with-qt-dir= option for configure.
No big deal.
I don't seem to have these type problems with Gnome.
Well, that's obvious since Gtk+ has not had a major version in a while.
GNOME had these problems when swithing from Gtk+ 1.0 to 1.1 and again
when switching from 1.1 to 1.2.
Have we already forgotten the 127 threads like "I installed GNOME and
now Gimp is broken" (and viceversa)?
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Poltorak)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: 10 May 2000 13:20:24 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Poltorak)
In paaS4.373$[EMAIL PROTECTED], "Erik Funkenbusch" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens) wrote in message
Here is a list of most of the files the patch disk replaced.
DISPLAY SYS 4752 27/03/92 6:00
Windows 3.1 was released in April of 92 IIRC, your files are dated from
March. How would it have meant trouble for anything?
Are you seriously suggesting that software released on April 1, 1992
would have a date stamp of April 1, 1992?
There is the small matter of testing involved. A concept which may be
new to some Windows developers.
Then tested software also needs to be sent to suppliers for manufacturing
into disketes before the product is released.
It's staggering that you can even try to make any point from the date of
the file mentioned when it is within a week or so of the release date.
--
John
Linux-Advocacy Digest #438
Linux-Advocacy Digest #438, Volume #26 Wed, 10 May 00 09:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Bob Germer)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Bob Germer)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Bob Germer)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Bob Germer)
Re: This is Bullsh^%T!!! (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Karel Jansens)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Bob Germer)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Karel Jansens)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: What have you done? (Full Name)
Re: This is Bullsh^%T!!! (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: This is Bullsh^%T!!! (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Bob Germer)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Bob Germer)
Re: This is Bullsh^%T!!! ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Bob Germer)
Re: This is Bullsh^%T!!! ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Bob Germer)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: Bob Germer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 11:44:35 GMT
On 05/10/2000 at 04:31 AM,
"Erik Funkenbusch" [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
WickedDyno [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:amg39.REMOVE-THIS-
OK... but why a "Chinese" wall?
It's a reference to the great wall of china, which was intended to stop
the barbarian hordes from getting into china, but also stopped the
chinese from getting out.
Once again you prove that you cannot tell the difference between a lie and
fact. The Great Wall didn't prevent Chinese from leaving China. It only
went along the northern border. There was no wall on the west, south, or
east. Chinese could always leave until the advent of communism in 1949.
--
==
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 13
MR/2 Ice 2.19 Registration Number 67
As the court closes in on M$, Lemmings are morphing to Ostrats!
=
--
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: Bob Germer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 11:50:58 GMT
On 05/10/2000 at 04:14 AM,
"Erik Funkenbusch" [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Furthermore, he summarizes by saying "Their use of undocumented
functions shows that Microsoft applications developers have access to
information on Windows Internals. But is this really such an unfair
advantage?" He then goes on to discuss how simple it is to find this
information and how Microsoft has made no effort to hide the
information, especially when using microsoft supplied tools like
CodeView and EXEHDR. His last statement on this says "The point is
merely that that Microsoft really can't be found to have unfair access
when anyone with copies of CVW and EXEHDR has essentially the same
access."
More pure bullshit on behalf of Criminal Bill. The above FUD assumes that
CVW and EXEHDR can find everything the programmer does. Since they are MS
products, that is not a valid assumption.
And any intelligent human being knows it. You are a liar and I've proved
it once again.
--
==
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 13
MR/2 Ice 2.19 Registration Number 67
As the court closes in on M$, Lemmings are morphing to Ostrats!
=
--
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: Bob Germer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 11:53:59 GMT
On 05/10/2000 at 01:31 AM,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Steinberg) said in response to Erik
Fuckingliar:
: Many people encrypt messages on the Internet. Is evidence of encryption
: supposed to be evidence of guilt?
What on earth is that supposed to mean? Guilt of what?
Really, that meaningless analogy is a pretty sad attempt to dodge the
question at hand.
Erik
Linux-Advocacy Digest #449
Linux-Advocacy Digest #449, Volume #26 Thu, 11 May 00 00:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: This is Bullsh^%T!!! ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Marty)
Summary of "Programs for Linux" post ("Nick")
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Joseph)
Re: Browsers and e-mail (Alan Boyd)
Re: Microsoft: STAY THE FUCK OFF THE NET!!! (Captain Lethargy)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Joseph)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Why Solaris is better than Linux ("Jim Ross")
Re: How to properly process e-mail ("Jim Ross")
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software ("Christopher Smith")
Re: How to properly process e-mail (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: German Govt says Microsoft a security risk (Salvador Peralta)
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 ("Bob May")
Re: This is Bullsh^%T!!! (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Salvador Peralta)
Re: Here is the solution (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: How to properly process e-mail ("Jim Ross")
Re: This is Bullsh^%T!!! (abraxas)
Re: How to properly process e-mail ("Christopher Smith")
Re: How to properly process e-mail ("Christopher Smith")
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 22:03:49 -0500
Alan Boyd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/991105-23.html
Brad Silverberg emailed Allchin on 27 September 1991: "drdos has
problems
running windows today, and I assume will have more problems in the
future."
Allchin replied: "You should make sure it has problems in the future.
:-)",
And lo and behold, two years later, it did.
Actually, it was 6 months later.
Clearly damage to the competition is not the only reason that could be
deduced if there were actual technical problems, which Silverberg says
there
were in internal memos.
From that same page:
Microsoft had a separate motion for dismissal of the
AARD-related perceived incompatibilities.
Microsoft's defence was not that it hadn't done it
(which it had previously argued), but that it was just
jolly old product disparagement.
That still doesn't indicate that MS's ONLY reason for the message was to
drive them out of the market. That's the message i'm responding to, the
fact that driving them out of the market is not the only possible reason for
it.
--
From: "Christopher Smith" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh^%T!!!
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 13:06:43 +1000
"Alan Boyd" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Christopher Smith wrote:
"Leslie Mikesell" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:8faj9d$2c7o$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
It isn't an OS issue - it is a mailer issue because it is the mailer
starting the program.
No, it's not. It's the mailer passing the file to shell saying "the
user
wants to open this, go dow hatever the default action is".
Actually it does whatever action is under the
"filetype\shell\open\command". In other words, if you change the
default to be "Edit", then that's what a double click in Explorer will
do. Double click in Outlook and you get a dialog to open or save. If
you select open, you get "Open" regardless of what the default is.
No, you don't. If you double click an attachment in Outlook it does
whatever the deafult action for that filetype is (defined in explorer).
IOW, if you change the default action for .vbs files from "Open" to "Edit",
double clicking a .vbs file [in Outlook] will open it in notepad.
A pedantic point, but I thought someone might need to know the
difference.
An incorrect point.
--
From: Marty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 03:00:23 GMT
Alan Boyd wrote:
Marty wrote:
David Steinberg wrote:
But the fact that they encrypted it implies that they didn't want its
existance to become public knowledge.
Did they, in fact, actually encrypt it or just compress it? They've been
compressing their binaries for years. The first compressed executable from
them I saw came with DOS 3.3. I found it very difficult to poke around
through it with DEBUG because I couldn't
Linux-Advocacy Digest #450
Linux-Advocacy Digest #450, Volume #26 Thu, 11 May 00 01:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Jim Richardson)
Re: How to properly process e-mail ("Christopher Smith")
Re: How to properly process e-mail ("Christopher Smith")
Re: This is Bullsh^%T!!! ("Christopher Smith")
Re: This is Bullsh^%T!!! (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software ("Christopher Smith")
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 ("Tom Hanlin")
Re: How to properly process e-mail (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: How to properly process e-mail (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Why Solaris is better than Linux ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: German Govt says Microsoft a security risk (Christopher Browne)
Re: Microsoft: STAY THE FUCK OFF THE NET!!! (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: German Govt says Microsoft a security risk (Salvador Peralta)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 04:01:55 GMT
On Wed, 10 May 2000 04:46:24 -0500,
Erik Funkenbusch, in the persona of [EMAIL PROTECTED],
brought forth the following words...:
John Poltorak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
In 8fa7e0$490$[EMAIL PROTECTED], "Christopher Smith"
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Since people run around chanting "show us Microsoft's innovation" but
neglect to also chant "show us $SOMEOTHERCOMPANY's innovation".
Here's a couple for starters:-
IBM inventors of the IBM PC
IBM inventors of the Winchester disk drive
Invention and innovation are two different things.
Even so, the IBM PC was clearly an invention, but was it innovation? It
used almost entirely off the shelf components.
ISTR that the IBM PC was the first machine with a non-hardwired expansion bus.
That is, it didn't care what slot you put the card in.
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
--
From: "Christopher Smith" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: How to properly process e-mail
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 14:09:34 +1000
"Mig Mig" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:8fcgrc$kcb$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Try not to change the subject. Outlook doesn't auto-execute
attachments, so the statement to which I replied was an outright lie.
For some reason (gee, I wonder what that could be?), you Unix fanatics
keep repeating it as if doing so will make it come true.
This is correct
As to your point, since Outlook always warns the user of potential
malice, any confusion on the user's part is the user's fault.
This is not correct! Just today at work i received some spam mail that
when
it appeared in the previewpane automaticly launched IE and went to some
weird URL. This is potentially a security risk!
Do explain how.
It's an irritiation, but I don't see a security risk (unless your IE
security settings are too low).
--
From: "Christopher Smith" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How to properly process e-mail
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 14:11:32 +1000
"Jim Ross" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:BBpS4.1190$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
As to your point, since Outlook always warns the user of potential
malice, any confusion on the user's part is the user's fault.
No I think some VBS viruses can set the warning back to the off state,
thus
not asking first.
Please explain how a .vbs virus will do this without first being run.
That shouldn't be optional really.
--
From: "Christopher Smith" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh^%T!!!
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 14:13:58 +1000
"abraxas" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:8fdaop$qkt$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Christopher Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm actually interested, because so far as I have heard, viruses on
macs (at least powermacs) are nearly nonexistant.
Of course they are. What would be the point of writing a virus for a
Mac ?
Hardly anyone would either a) see it or b) be affected by it.
Actually, I used to work with a guy who was challenged by a collegue to
write a virus that would work under MacOS 7.6 or higher running on a PCI
powermac...
You'd have to wonder how hard it would be to write a Mac program that
deleted a few random files from the hard disk.
Heck, AFAIK all you have to is change the type of the System folder and a
Mac won't boot.
He was a seasoned windows/unix/mac programmer who had written viruses
in the past, and he wasnt able to come up with one at *all*. Thats why
im interested in anyone who HAS been able to,
Linux-Advocacy Digest #435
Linux-Advocacy Digest #435, Volume #26 Wed, 10 May 00 05:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Which Flavour Is Best? ("none2")
Re: This is Bullsh^%T!!! ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (John Poltorak)
NYC LOCAL: 10 May 2000 GNU/Linux/FreeOS Beginners' Meeting: Alex Khalil will answer
questions ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Karel Jansens)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Karel Jansens)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software ("Erik Funkenbusch")
From: "none2" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Which Flavour Is Best?
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 20:13:09 +
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Dave Rolfe
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree! I just installed Mandrake 7.0 and it is really very good. The
only thing I would fault them with is the install docs are a tad
confusing and self contradictory. I found that ignoring the "warning
mandrake is prolly the worse distro i've seen, its basically a copy of
Redhat, btw dont give me that "optimised for pentiums shit" most of RH's
stuff is already -O2 optimised, and the kernel is the only thing that
needs to be optimised, like that 3dnow optimised shit. then mandrake
release version numbers to try to make it look better than RH. for example
a jump to a figure x.0 like 6.0 and 7.0 it would imply something, RH
jumped to 6.0 which was a 2.2.x/glibc 2.1.x upgrade, mandrake 7.0 offers
nothing extra apart from there own installer prog and a general upgrade of
RPMS.
REDHAT:
5.0 major upgrade
5.1,5.2,5.3,5.x minor upgrades
6.0 major upgrade
6.1,6.2,6.3,6.4 minor upgrades
7.0 major upgrade
7.1,7.2,7.x
MANDRAKE:
5.0,5.1,5.2,6.0,6.1,6.2,7.0,7.0,7.01,7.02,7.1 minor upgrades
something like that... cant remember the version #'s... u have to be 2
versions ahead of RH
letter" and going with the thinner of the two install docs seemed about
right for me. In any event, my grahpics adapter was supported by the
automated install process
(a first for me) and even my sound card came up and worked. My version
of Mandrake came with star office which works fine for word processing,
but I would recomend that you take a look at LyX. KLyX comes with
Mandrake but I think that LyX is somewhat less buggy. Lyx is a word
processor
but even there installer program wasnt that great, so they had to upgrade
to 7.01 and 7.02 came out just as fast, now 7.1 beta is here already!,
whats type of upgrading is this? cant the mandrake team wait a while? do
they wanna keep you downloading more ISO images? i think so. for example
RH7.0 will be a major revision, it will incorporate XFree86 4.0, Kernel
2.4.x, possibly gnome and kde2 updates. Now thats a reason to upgrade to
the version number. Mandrake would release 8 by then, coz its got a
bigger number it should be better... bullshit. My version of RH
6.2 works better than any version of Mandrake 7.x, why? Redhat have a
better development model called rawhide and contrib, so theres less
problems. even my flatmate noticed that my 6.1 CD was better than mandrake
7... he had problems Mdk installing detected devices, typical.
Slackware is brilliant example of lets skip versions, what ever happened
to slack 5 and 6...come to think of it, what ever happened to mandrake
1-4? mandrake, it blows chunks, if u want a newbie distro, run windows,
otherwise dont bother with linux...we get so many dumb ass's asking
questions.
I'm personally using Mandrake 6.2 and i love it. It comes with a great
set of manuals. Plus you get to choose between KDE, Gnome, and X-
Windows GUIs.
Mandrake blows
--
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh^%T!!!
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 03:33:09 -0500
Perry Pip [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
On Tue, 9 May 2000 21:24:39 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Perry Pip [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
How exactly does the email client know that .jpg or .mp3 is what it
claims
to be?
It doesn't need to know. All it needs to know is that a jpeg veiwer or
mp3
player is a safe application to pass it to, because the application
will
attempt to render the file's contents, instead of attempting to
interpret
and execute the file's contents. If you pass a jpeg viewer a file that
is
not in jpeg format it will report an error. Same with an mp3 player.
And how does it know that the application is safe to execute content?
You redesign the email client so that it does. Microsoft has the source
code to Outlook so they can certainly do that.
Oh sure, and I'll just redesign my wallet so that there is always money
available for me to use.
It's easy to say "Just do something" without offering any real way to
Linux-Advocacy Digest #437
Linux-Advocacy Digest #437, Volume #26 Wed, 10 May 00 08:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Programs for Linux (Carsten Pitz)
Re: This is Bullsh^%T!!! (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: This is Bullsh^%T!!! ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: This is Bullsh^%T!!! (mlw)
Re: This is Bullsh^%T!!! (mlw)
Re: So what is wrong with X? (Stephen Cornell)
Re: This is Bullsh^%T!!! (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: Programs for Linux (Hoosain Madhi)
Re: German Govt says Microsoft a security risk (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Bob Germer)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Bob Germer)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Bob Germer)
Re: This is Bullsh^%T!!! (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: This is Bullsh^%T!!! (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: This is Bullsh^%T!!! (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Bob Germer)
From: Carsten Pitz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc,linux.dev.newbie
Subject: Re: Programs for Linux
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 10:02:41 GMT
(1) GNU assembler (gas)
(2) Oracle maybe is a good choice
BTW, I am quite intersted in why you need an assembler.
Carsten
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh^%T!!!
Date: 10 May 2000 10:13:23 GMT
In article 325S4.359$[EMAIL PROTECTED],
Erik Funkenbusch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Leslie Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[ attribution lost, but I think it was Erik... ]
How come unix doesn't prevent the creation of link files to
potentially dangerous commands?
In general it does, unless your PATH includes directories writable
by you. If you don't ordinarily do programming or scripting this
is a bad idea, and if you do you should put your area last in the
PATH so a trojan there won't be executed instead of the system copy
with the same name.
Path variables are user-defineable.
Sure, but most people don't redefine them, leaving them set to the
system's default.
It's pretty common to put the current directory first in your path
since this reduces lag time for local commands and allows you to
create local versions of things.
It isn't *that* common, and it is also a security hole, though not too
serious a one for most users (i.e non-root) given a sensible umask()
and the fact that programs require the execute bit to be set for them
to be spotted by the OS/shell. I will admit that there are several
camps about on this topic; some people seem to actively seek to live
dangerously...
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellowshttp://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- Always running as a superuser is not a fault, it's an OS preference.
-- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh^%T!!!
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 05:24:44 -0500
mlw [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Again, you're asking that the email program KNOWS it's a script. It
doesn't.
It should be coded so that it does. If it isn't now, then it is wrong.
If the e-mail client can not tell the difference between a script and
harmless data, it has no business being used for e-mail.
Which Unix email clients can tell the difference between a script and text
file?
--
From: mlw [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh^%T!!!
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 06:30:30 -0400
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
Perry Pip [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
On Tue, 9 May 2000 21:24:39 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Perry Pip [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
How exactly does the email client know that .jpg or .mp3 is what it
claims
to be?
It doesn't need to know. All it needs to know is that a jpeg veiwer or
mp3
player is a safe application to pass it to, because the application
will
attempt to render the file's contents, instead of attempting to
interpret
and execute the file's contents. If you pass a jpeg viewer a file that
is
not in jpeg format it will report an error. Same with an mp3 player.
And how does it know that the application is safe to execute content?
You redesign the email client so that it does. Microsoft has the source
code to Outlook so they can certainly do that.
Oh sure, and I'll just redesign my wallet so that there is always money
available for me to use.
It's easy to say "Just do something" without offering any real way to do it.
Here is how you do it:
Add one field in the registry, under classes, for each entry
Linux-Advocacy Digest #443
Linux-Advocacy Digest #443, Volume #26 Wed, 10 May 00 14:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Here is the solution (Josiah Fizer)
Re: This is Bullsh^%T!!! (Seán Ó Donnchadha)
Re: Here is the solution (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Here is the solution ("Chad Myers")
Re: Why Solaris is better than Linux ("Cihl")
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Peter Ammon)
Re: Here is the solution (Josiah Fizer)
Re: This is Bullsh^%T!!! (Brian Langenberger)
Re: Why Solaris is better than Linux (Donn Miller)
Re: Programs for Linux (Dallas Times)
Re: What have you done? (Bart Oldeman)
Re: How to properly process e-mail (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: This is Bullsh^%T!!! (Leslie Mikesell)
RE: Why Solaris is better than Linux ("Alberto Trillo")
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Mark Ritchie)
From: Josiah Fizer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Here is the solution
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 10:00:39 -0700
Leslie Mikesell wrote:
In article P0eS4.2252$[EMAIL PROTECTED],
Alberto Trillo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Let's begin assuming that from Java one can program whatever
one want, and since there are not only Windows JDK, but a lot
of compilers (like IBM, Symantec or Inprise to say some) targeted
to Windows, why should anyone want to use Windows undocummented
API calls when Java can just be used to everything.
If you do not think Java servers for all, well, don't you think that
there
are enough shared libraries and enough API calls to let you do whatever
you want to do ? What can Microsoft use undocummented API's for ?
Do you think there is a call start_word() ? Well, Microsoft does a lot
of awful things, but why the hell does it need hidden API's ? Let's be
serious, and if so, what advance can those hidden API's give to their
applications ?
What I want is a non-Microsoft replacement for the Windows 2000
domain controller and active directory services that will provide
full client functionality without requiring the Microsoft server.
Is the protocol sufficentially documented to allow that?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
We use Novells NDS services for Windows NT. Works far better then the NT
Domain active directory. granted its not a true replacment as its not
compatible. But it serves the same function.
--
From: Seán Ó Donnchadha [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh^%T!!!
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 13:08:15 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH) wrote:
If it's so easy, why does unix require the #! syntax to identify scripts?
This actually makes content based identification of files and
general file types 'easy'. It is the sort of thing that negates
the need for a registry.
Examining the file to determine type is just about the worst thing you
can do. It's unreliable and inefficient (requiring sophisticated
pattern matching that doesn't always work), and you're screwed if you
don't have read access.
The file itself contains the necessary information so you don't
need a centralized list of some kind.
The file doesn't always have the necessary information. For example, a
file may contain raw PCM data with no header. Besides, what is
/etc/magic if not a "centralized list of some kind"?
IMHO, when it comes to file typing, the Mac does it the best way, and
Unix the worst.
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Here is the solution
Date: 10 May 2000 12:23:23 -0500
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Josiah Fizer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
are enough shared libraries and enough API calls to let you do whatever
you want to do ? What can Microsoft use undocummented API's for ?
Do you think there is a call start_word() ? Well, Microsoft does a lot
of awful things, but why the hell does it need hidden API's ? Let's be
serious, and if so, what advance can those hidden API's give to their
applications ?
What I want is a non-Microsoft replacement for the Windows 2000
domain controller and active directory services that will provide
full client functionality without requiring the Microsoft server.
Is the protocol sufficentially documented to allow that?
We use Novells NDS services for Windows NT. Works far better then the NT
Domain active directory. granted its not a true replacment as its not
compatible. But it serves the same function.
Compatibility is the point. Every little thing in Win2k seems
to require active directory service for no reason other than
to force you to install a server. For example you can manually
sync remote files without one, but if you want to do it
automatically you need active
