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/991105-000023.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 see the real code until it was all
> > decompressed in memory, and consequently I couldn't easily map it back to a
> > location in the file to change any piece of it.
>
> http://www.ddj.com/articles/1993/9309/9309d/9309d.htm
Thanks for the details and clarification. Soft-Ice is a really excellent
tool, especially with two video cards.
------------------------------
From: "Nick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.linux,alt.os.linux,alt.os.linux.caldera,alt.os.linux.mandrake,comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.questions
Subject: Summary of "Programs for Linux" post
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 03:01:53 GMT
Hi, first off, I'd like to thank all of the people who responded to the
"Programs for Linux" post that I had made on alt.linux, alt.os.linux,
alt.os.linux.caldera, alt.os.linux.mandrake, comp.os.linux,
comp.os.linux.advocacy, comp.os.linux.questions.
Here's a summary of URLs I recieved...
CAD:
http://www.staticfreesoft.com/
http://sal.kachinatech.com/index.shtml
http://freshmeat.net/search.php3?query=CAD
3-D Modeling:
http://freshmeat.net/appindex/1998/04/15/892637169.html
Compose MIDI:
http://freshmeat.net/appindex/2000/01/10/947507684.html
IEEE 1394 (Firewire):
http://freshmeat.net/search.php3?query=IEEE+1394
Plastic Card Printer:
.......................................
Special Thanks to Stu.
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[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 13:12:20 +1000
"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 $SOMEOTHERCOMPANY's innovation".
>
> Here's a couple for starters:-
>
> IBM inventors of the IBM PC
How was the PC innovative ?
> IBM inventors of the Winchester disk drive
That's one.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 20:05:53 -0400
From: Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > > I think Microsoft has a right to warn people about possible
> > > incompatibilities. There were documented memory management bugs in
> DR-DOS
> > > (these were fixed in a patch later).
> >
> > MS does NOT have a right to warn people of possible incompatibilites.
> > But we know more. MS documents show the intention of the code was to
> > disparage DR-DOS. Slam dunk.
>
> They don't have the right to tell people that something doesn't work well
> with their product? Why not?
>
> MS documents also show the fact that DR-DOS had problems with Windows.
So too did MS DOS have technical problems with windows. One supposed
benefit of tying DOS 7.0 to Windows4.0 (windows95) was the reduction in
technical problems between the MS DOS and Windows.
This is about BRANDS. Windows checked for the OS brand - that isn't a
legitimate technical requirement for windows. MS wasn't asked to make
Windows compatible with DR DOS or support DR DOS or prove a warrenty -
my god MS doesn't even give a warrenty with their own software.
------------------------------
From: Alan Boyd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Browsers and e-mail
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 22:04:05 -0500
Leslie Mikesell wrote:
>
> In article <8F2S4.339$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Simply right click on the .bat file and choose the edit command.
> >
>
> Is there any way to associate the left mouse button with a
> menu of a small number of choices for certain file types
> instead of only having one default or the cumbersome thing
> that happens with unregistered types?
What I did back in Win 3.1 was to write a program that gets a file name
from the command line. I'd associate it with the file type I wanted
multiple programs for. When that file was double clicked the program
started with the file name on the command line. The program stripped
off the extension and looked it up in it's own association file. It
would then pop up a listbox of programs that were assigned to the file
type. You'd select one and click OK (or Cancel). The program then
executed the program you'd selected.
--
"I don't believe in anti-anything. A man has to have a
program; you have to be *for* something, otherwise you
will never get anywhere." -- Harry S Truman
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Microsoft: STAY THE FUCK OFF THE NET!!!
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.fan.bill-gates
From: Captain Lethargy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 23:04:16 -0400
Roger <roger@.> wrote:
>On 9 May 2000 23:19:41 -0500, someone claiming to be Leslie Mikesell
>wrote:
>
>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>Roger <roger@.> wrote:
>
>>>Well, since the situation under question does not involve the running
>>>of any random bit of code, but instead an active decision on the part
>>>of the user to run code instead of saving it as is the default, your
>>>point would be ... ?
>
>>The point is that the decision was ill-informed because the mailer
>>does not distinguish between viewing content and executing it.
>>How would it have been better to use the default 'save' and
>>then click on it later?
>
>I don't understand -- you prefer for the user not to have ability to
>run code at all?
The virus, which is actually a scriptplays on people's stupidty to trusti=
ngly
open email attachemnts when they don know what they are, ignornace aint b=
liss...
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 20:10:16 -0400
From: Joseph <[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
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > > > Office developers have been taking advantage of undocumented API's for
> > > > years.
> > >
> > > They did in the early years. This was proven by Andrew Schulman. But
> > > Schulman also proved that the API's used were not advantagous to MS,
> since
> > > the information was available in other ways.
> >
> > That is a lie. The one example that I remember best was the API EXCEL
> > used to allocate RAM which was much faster and more efficient than the
> > public API WINGZ was forced to use. He made it clear that the API gave
> > MS an distinct advantage.
>
> From page 37 of Undocumented Windows (Schulman, Maxey, Pietrek):
>
> Schulman reveals that Excel uses only the following undocumented API's (and
> ordinals).
Which version of Windows?
> He says in many places that he believes that much of this code is old code
> from the Windows 1.0 and 2.0 days when the OS was not as complete. For
> instance, EndMenu, FillWindow, and the various GDI functions are all
> available from different API's.
You argued against MS. The undocumented APIs were even more critical
when the OS was not as complete. The competitor had an even greater
disadvantage.
The API I refer to was relevent in v2.0 when RAM allocation was very
inefficient and MS EXCEL was newer and was in competition with WINGZ.
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[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 13:18:50 +1000
"Bob Germer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:3919486d$1$obot$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On 05/10/2000 at 09:44 AM,
> "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
>
> > Microsoft behave identically to almost every other company. Bitching
> > about Microsoft without also bitching about everyone else is hypocrisy,
> > plain and simple.
>
> What a load of pure fiction! Most companies do not get convicted of
> breaking the anti-trust laws of the United States. In fact, only a
> miniscule percentage does.
Which was not what I said. I said they behaved the same way. Two different
things.
> Microsoft is a corrupt, lawbreaking disgrace.
------------------------------
From: "Jim Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Solaris is better than Linux
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 23:10:18 -0400
Alberto Trillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:JphS4.2369$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > zero additional performance after 4 for NT and probably the same for
> Linux.
>
> Why probably ? Based upon what ?
>
> > Solaris is also much much more stable. Big Solaris systems attain
what's
> > known as "5 9's" -- 99.999% uptime. That comes out to 5 minutes of
> downtime
> > per year.
>
> Do you find GNU/Linux unstable ?
It can be.
GNU/Linux doesn't hit 5 9's in my experience.
More like 3 or 4.
>
> > Solaris is free for individual use but it is not free
> > for commercial use which Linux is.
>
> Just a Sun strategy to capture GNU/Linux trainned people (specially
young
> persons). They fail to understand open source meaning.
More like a Sun strategy to capture those who want better quality, cheap
tools who don't care about free software as in liberty.
Jim
------------------------------
From: "Jim Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How to properly process e-mail
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 23:14:02 -0400
Rob S. Wolfram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 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]>
>
The problem isn't that MS Outlook can execute e-mail content.
The problem is it does it carelessly, sometimes not asking, or having the
ask dialog overwritten by e-mail content.
This does make things easier to use, do obviously. One less app to open
first.
Jim
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[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 13:25:12 +1000
"Joseph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > John Poltorak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
> > > If I accept that this code was removed from the final release,
> > > can you give me any justification for it being there in the first
> > > place?
>
> The code was in the final product but switched off.
>
> > 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.
You're kidding right ? You'd prefer they just wandered around wondering why
something wasn't working ?
Sheesh, I suppose you think people shouldn't be warned not to stick knives
into toasters, as well ?
> But we know more. MS documents show the intention of the code was to
> disparage DR-DOS. Slam dunk.
Untrue.
We also know from many other places that DRDOS does/did have memory
management compatibility problems (try playing some "cutting edge" (at the
time) games on DRDOS).
------------------------------
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 22:19:52 -0500
In article <8fd6v2$sbo$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> >>
>> >>Does that mean that even there you can't tell the difference between
>> >>a gif and a script before executing it?
>> >>
>> >
>> >Huh? How do you get that from what I said?
>>
>> I didn't, which is why I am still asking questions. Is the difference
>> between an image and a script obvious in preview mode or not? That
>> is, can you tell if 'open' is dangereous?
>
>Yes. Different icon, different file extension.
So how does that tell you what is going to happen?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Salvador Peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: German Govt says Microsoft a security risk
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 20:23:59 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
What do you know about Scientology, Chris?
My PoV is that it world government, especially the German government,
should be tolerant of diversity. What I know of Scientology deals less
with religion and religiosity than it does with organizational
principles.
Government should never actively promote intolerance.
Christopher Browne wrote:
>
> Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Salvador Peralta would say:
> >Unfortunately, the article had nothing to do with m$ being a security
> >risk from the software standpoint and everything to do with m$
> >incorporating some of scientology's philosophies into their corporate
> >model. The german government has already given us enough intolerance
> >for the next 2 centuries, IMHO. Let's not applaud them for giving us
> >more.
>
> Unfortunately, anything I can see of Scientology's behaviour seems to
> me to be Rather Frightening.
>
> It is not at all obvious that being unwilling to tolerate Scientology
> connections represents a move towards evil.
> --
> Rules of the Evil Overlord #84. "I will not have captives of one sex
> gnuarded by members of the opposite sex."
> <http://www.eviloverlord.com/>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
--
Salvador Peralta
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.la-online.com
------------------------------
From: "Bob May" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.lang.basic
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 20:25:28 -0700
A good rant. Personally, I would love to see the executives of a
company more responsible for the actions of the company. Personel at
Microsoft intentionally stole software from Stac and the loss to
Microsoft was a day's profits. Woopppddeeee dddoooo ! ! ! The
executives that did the theft probably got raises because they kept
the loss down. They should have stood time in the local hoosgow just
like the nitwit that holds up the 7-11. It is really a shame that we
allow actions to be done by companies to happen and do nothing about
it while the little criminal gets the serious time.
Sorry to be getting so high on my soapbox but the more I think of it,
the more I get pissed.
--
Bob May
Don't subscribe to ACCESS1 for your webserver for the low prices. The
service has
been lousy and has been poor for the last year. Bob May
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 03:32:37 GMT
On Thu, 11 May 2000 13:00:17 +1000, Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Christopher Smith wrote:
>> >
>> > "Leslie Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:8faj9d$2c7o$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > > In article <DZ1S4.332$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> > > Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > >How is the OS to know which documents launch apps that simply display
>> > data
>> > > >and which ones do something with it? (for instance, zip archives
>don't
>> > just
>> > > >display data, they can create new files).
>> > >
>> > > 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".
>>
>> OK, then it is an OS issue. Fine, MS needs to fix it. It is a security
>> bug.
>
>The shell running a script is a security bug ? You _have_ to be kidding.
...if you aren't paying any attention where your shell
scripts are comming from: then yes.
>
>Would you call "/bin/sh ./myscript.sh" running a script a security bug as
>well ?
--
In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
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 20:40:07 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Not worth the time. Other examples of what I believe to be the
intentional breaking of competitors products with word document open
functions in both Lotus Notes v 4.x, 5.0, and Netscape 4.6 and below.
I see it as a pattern of behaviour for Microsoft. Make your own
decision.
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> Umm.. not in my book it doesn't. Please provide quotes and pages.
>
> Salvador Peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[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
--
Salvador Peralta
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.la-online.com
------------------------------
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 22:37:02 -0500
In article <8fcbp3$hqk$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Todd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Challenge:
>
>Give me just *one* MS undocumented API call, that could not be done with
>their *free* downloadable SDK?
>
>Just *one* API call is all I'm asking.
>
>MS provides WIn32 developers with *everything* they need and more.
>
>If you want to try this challenge, again, just give me *one* undocumented
>API call or secret API (whatever) that meets this challenge.
>
>I bet that I can write *any* piece of Win32 software with the normal SDK
>that is downloadable for *free* from MS's web site.
>
>All you conspiracy theorists are welcome to take this challenge.
>
>Just *one* API call is all I'm asking for here...
Can you write a backup domain controller capable of syncing
contents with an NT domain controller? Or a replacement
primary controller that can sync to a Microsoft backup
controller?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Jim Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How to properly process e-mail
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 23:15:38 -0400
Seán Ó Donnchadha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH) wrote:
>
> >>>
> >>>Now Microsoft Outlook offers you *auto-execution* of e-mail content
> >>>*without sanity checking*, and Erik Funkenbusch tells us that until
> >>>Linux offers this "user-friendlyness" it will never "play in the same
> >>>game" as Windows? (<mJpQ4.4498$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) I think it's a
> >>>good thing not to "play the same game" as Windows. Not for the next
> >>>couple of decades.
> >>>
> >>
> >>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?
> >
> > Sure it does: confusing 'open' with 'run random and potenially
> > malicious code'.
> >
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
That shouldn't be optional really.
Jim
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: 11 May 2000 03:51:53 GMT
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...
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, and what their methods
were.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
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 14:07:27 +1000
"Leslie Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8fd8so$23rj$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <8fd6v2$sbo$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> >>
> >> >>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?
> >
> >Yes. Different icon, different file extension.
>
> So how does that tell you what is going to happen?
If you "open" something that can execute code, it's very dangerous.
------------------------------
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 14:08:39 +1000
"Leslie Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8fctj3$1dml$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 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?
One observes the attachments icon and extension to determine whether it is a
.gif or a .vbs.
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
