On Sat, 14 Dec 2002, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > As I've written off-list to Michael ...
Then you will get a reply "direct from the horse's mouth...<g> > There are places been on most of the continents of the world....know these type problems well.. --------------snip------------- > where I'm headed with this whole idea), the program cannot contain even > hidden or disabled code. For what it's worth...the heart of Arachne is CORE.EXE....that program has no (to my knowledge - Michael and GlennMcC can confirm) "communication code"....it can ONLY shell out to external/additional programs, such as MINITERM and EPPPD to handle communications. The whole ArachnePackage HAS quite a few pages, that help integrate the activation of those communications-function external programs, but those pages are mostly NOT required for the basic operation of a non-communicating ArachneVIEWER.... Try it for yourself.....set up an experimental directory, say \ARACH-X, then do an install of any recent package (recent, because I can't remember much about packages prior to 1.66). When you get to the point where you are selecting type of internet connection, select the "No Connection to the Internet" option. This will write an ARACHNE.CFG that has NULL in all the connection functions. Now, that ArachneInstallation will NOT connect or communicate, at all. After that, remove all the obvious communications components of the ArachnePackage, such as MINITERM, EPPPD, etc. Your non-connecting Arachne will still work fine, as a VIEWER.. The reason I know this is true, is because I used Arachne1.47 for almost 2 years, on my OS/2 v.2.0 and 2.1, without every connecting to the Internet (hadn't a connection)...that is when I fell in love with Arachne. > that functions as an off-line browser, but has no code for handling > dialing, email, etc. - as if those subjects were never written into the > original code. CORE.EXE has no communications functions in-built....(I may be wrong, Glenn or Michael can refute or confirm). > Removing the code that relates to the history file would be a welcomed > bonus. Ideally, the viewer would run directly from a CD and never leave a > trace of its activity on the computer. No CD, no history. hmmm...but, being able to backtrack, even on a local-VIEWER may be a "feature"....not a liability....<g g g>... What you are trying to get, here, seems to be a "clean" VIEWER that has NO connect capabilities.....AND....has no pages in its package that even hint at connection capabilities. IMNSHO....I could do this, tonight, on any one of my existing Arachne installations....I might have to substitute temporary "dummy" pages for those referencing "connect-type" functions, until I could write replacement pages, but the temporary pages would contain NO hint of a connection capability. Coupled together with the complete absence of any Connect-function Executables/DLLs/etc...this would completely "clean" that VIEWER package. It could NOT be used to connect, and contained not even any HINT of connection capabilities...therefore, it would be completely clean......I would also remove the InSight email package, etc.. Would that meet your needs....?? > The viewer would be useful as an instructional device for a multitude of > purposes. If it looked similar to Arachne, then it would also be a It would look exactly like Arachne, unless there was a deliberate name-change....and cosmetic-GUI changes. > half-step toward teaching internet connectivity via Arachne (when that But, you also raise the prospect that Arachne would be very useful as strictly a VIEWER....which most of us can already attest to..<g>...so VIEWER, in itself would be a worthy goal... > I don't want to turn a computer email list into a political forum, but Hey..!!!...we're most of us rebels, of one sort or another...otherwise we wouldn't be here.....<g g g g> > wrote the code. (I hope that gives Billy Boy heartburn). ah...you mean billygoats, don't you....????......<g g g> >> The question is...just how REALLY technically knowledgeable are >> those foreign "checkers" going to be...? > (and Radical Robert replies) ... > Who knows? I guess it depends on the time and place. Usually these things > are forwarded to a central office for further review. Maybe they will be > VERY good, and why take the chance. I'd rather look them in the eye and I did NOT mean to try to fool them...I meant would they be REALLY able to tell that our proposed VIEWERpackage (1) had NO connect capability - since all the connect components were missing, and (2) had no pages or documentation or anything that even hinted at connection capabilites. I mean, a program that HAS no connect capabilities and does not even HINT at those capabilities is NOT, anyway, ever, a browser.... The question I asked was would those "checkers" be able to see that the thing really WAS clean and innocent...<g> > tell the truth. Actually, the plan was to first walk boldly (okay, on > tiptoes) into the office and say "here it is, check it out". yes...in my fairly broad experience...this is always the best practice with those foreign "dignitaries" types.. >> Will they just look on >> some list, see "Arachne - browser" and refused it, > (RR) > Not if it had a different name, which would also preserve the Arachne > name for its intended purpose - web browser and internet communication. Michael would have to agree to this, but I see no reason why he wouldn't. After all, he let Caldera rename it to "Webspyder" or some such.... >> or will they actually look to see if it has >> communication capabilities..?? > (RR) > Guaranteed that somebody will. Then, if they are technically qualified they will be able to quickly see that ArachneVIEWER (or whatever name) is innocious...even to the extent of scanning CORE.EXE with a HexDumper... > Now, really, gregy. Considering your comments in the "Ephiphany re M$" > email stream, I would expect that you would understand the caution. > <grin> hey...been all through there, and over there, and under there. My question was trying to find out if those "checkers" would be really able to CONFIRM that the ArachneVIEWER package WAS clean....or if they were likely to be some sand-footed "petty-official" dummy. > We don't have to be "paranoid" to be 'smarter than the coyote', just > cautious. I said, "It ain't paranoia if they really ARE out to get ya."...<g g g> .....gregy -- This mail was sent by a user of Arachne - The Ultimate Internet Client
