Linux-Advocacy Digest #429, Volume #26 Tue, 9 May 00 22:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! (mlw)
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 ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Browsers and e-mail ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Which OS is WORST? (Gary Hallock)
Re: Programs for Linux ("Jackie")
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Let's POLL! ("Rich C")
Re: Microsoft invents XML! ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (David Steinberg)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Tue, 9 May 2000 19:56:23 -0500
Salvador Peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > > Actually, it is true that they insert spurious messages into code and
> > > write code that degrades the performance of their competitors.
DR-DOS,
> > > which was dealt with in the Federal lawsuit is one example.
> >
> > Did not exist in a retail product.
>
> ... because they had already buried the company with FUD before Win3.x
> went on sale.
Really? I didn't read any reports from Microsoft claiming any FUD against
DR-DOS before Win 3.x went on sale.
> > > Netscape is another that was addressed in the lawsuit.
> >
> > I don't recall seeing any testimony which suggested that Microsoft
displayed
> > spurious warnings when Netscape was used.
>
> Jackson's findings of fact showed that Microsoft "integration" of IE
> into the OS degraded the performance of the Netscape browser.
That doesn't explain why Netscape performs even more poorly on Unix.
> > > And the "if wordperfect then
> > > declare a font allocation error when no such error exists" is a third.
> >
> > I've never heard of this one. Where is the documentation for it?
>
> I don't know if there is any. I do know that it is reproducible w/ the
> set of dll updates that come bundled with the Epson Stylus Color 600
> when used with Corel WP 7, and the first version of Windows 95.
Ahh.. so you are making assumptions. It never occured to you that Word
Perfect may actually have a bug in their program?
> > > As to whether they continue to use undocumented API's, I doubt if you
> > > could know either way. The operative word here is "undocumented".
> >
> > Since Windows is a DLL based OS, it's quite easy to install tracing
hooks to
> > determine which API's are called and with which arguments. In fact,
several
> > companies sell automatic tools to do such.
>
> I'm no expert, so I'll ask you. Have the KERNEL32 ordinals below 100
> been named and documented yet?
There are going to be ordinals that are undocumented because they are used
internally by the OS. Do you have any proof of MS applications using those
ordinals?
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: Tue, 09 May 2000 20:56:12 -0400
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Seem's that here you are saying that it's not the email application's
> fault.
> >
> > I assert that an e-mail client has NO RIGHT WHAT SO EVER to RUN A
> > PROGRAM or OPEN a FILE unless it knows exctly what IT IS DOING!!!!!! An
> > E-mail client MUST ACT AS a gatekeeper!! If the e-mail client can not
> > tell the difference between harmless data, i.e. *.mp3 or *.jpeg and
> > executable content i.e. *.doc, *.exe or *.vbs, then it should be pulled
> > from the market right away.
>
> How exactly does the email client know that .jpg or .mp3 is what it claims
> to be? You could send a virus with a .jpg extension and then have a
> different trojan rename the file types to launch the virus when the jpg file
> is opened. Suddenly, a jpg is no longer safe.
If it ends with ".jpeg" or ".jpg" then it should be interpreted as a
bitmap. If it is not a bitmap, it should be reported as a corrupt file.
What other behavior would any sane person expect?
The file reports itself to be a bitmap, but..... Wait!! It looks like a
vbs script!!! Perhaps the OS should run it and see what happens!!! Yea,
right, give me a break.
If it ends with .jpeg, .pic, .bmp, .pcx, .gif, etc it is a bitmap. If it
ends with .doc, it is a word file which should be opened in a sand-box,
if word can not muster a sand-box, it should not run. Use the mime type
is is transferred in. If it ends with .gif, but the mime type says it is
a vbs file, then run it in a sand-box, if you can't run it in a
sand-box, don't run it.
What is so hard about this? Microsoft goes out of their way to get rid
of clear text authentication between Windows machines, yet they'll let
any old vbs script run from an e-mail unchecked? Stupid. The clear text
authentication was more of an inconvenience, but it had the effect of
reducing competition and promoting their monopoly. Clearly with outlook
and e-mail, they don't care.
>
> > If it is just as easy to open a *.jpeg or
> > *.mp3 file as it is to open a *.exe or *.vbs then the e-mail client is
> > broken. The e-mail client should go kicking and screaming with dialog
> > boxes with increasing seriousness: "You are about to run a program from
> > an unknown source, this could be a virus,"<OK><CANCEL> "
>
> How does the email program know that it's from an unknown source?
ALL e-mail is assumed from an unknown source!!!!! Any other thinking on
this subject has clearly been proved in error.
>
> > Running programs
> > received through e-mail is usually a bad idea, contact the sender for
> > confirmation on the validity of this program" <OK><CANCEL> "Your system
> > and data can be compromised and data loss can occur if you
> > continue."<OK><CANCEL> "This is your last chance, selecting <OK> may
> > cause your system to become unstable and result in data
> > loss."<OK><CANCEL>
>
> And people bitch and moan that Windows already displays too many warning
> messages.
Yes, it does, jusy not in the right places.
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 9x, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
"We've got a blind date with destiny, and it looks like she ordered the
lobster"
------------------------------
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: Tue, 09 May 2000 21:00:03 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
David Steinberg wrote:
>
> Christopher Smith ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> : Yes. Microsoft were beta testing Windows. Since Windows has a
> : tendency to do some rather unholy things to DOS (particularly the memory
> : managers provided with it) notifying users of a DOS which was *known*
> : not to be 100% compatible was simply common sense. It was not
> : Microsoft's responsibility to debug DRDOS.
>
> Unfortunately, it seems Microsoft did not belive this action was so
> innocent...
>
> Care to explain the encryption?
Or the flurry of e-mails about how they were going to explain it?
-Peter
------------------------------
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: Tue, 9 May 2000 20:11:45 -0500
Salvador Peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Also, has ICMP.DLL been documented yet?
INFO: Implementing Internet Pings Using Icmp.dll
ID: Q170591
============================================================================
----
The information in this article applies to:
Microsoft Win32 Software Development Kit (SDK)
============================================================================
----
SUMMARY
Icmp.dll provides functionality that allows developers to write Internet
ping applications on Windows systems without Winsock 2 support. The .h and
.lib files needed in order to use Icmp.dll were provided with previous
versions of Win 32 SDK in the MSTOOLS\ICMP directory. The current Platform
SDK release includes only the icmp.lib file. A Readme.txt (copied below) and
the .h files from previous versions of the Win 32 SDK were, and still are,
the only documentation available.
> How many years has that one been out there?
> Is the API, ObOpenObjectByPointer() documented by MS?
That's an internal file system API. It's not meant for use outside of the
OS. Occasionally there are programs that need to use this API, and it's
available from MS via non-disclosure. Even so, there are ways to get the
information that the API provides without using undocumented calls.
> 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. Of course someone will ask "So
why did they need to use that API?", and the answer is that they didn't need
to use it. A developer chose to use it rather than use a supported method.
MS removed undocumented API references soon after Schulman published his
book, and the applications did not suffer from the removal.
> MS has leveraged the tight binding of Office to windows through
> undocumented features since as early as 1992. How many months of
> commercial lead time did PowerPoint have with OLE before it was even
> given to third party vendors to build into their apps?
3rd party vendors didn't start supporting OLE for quite some time after it
was available. It was a complex API set that took a lot of time to figure
out. MS did have the advantage of having the developers of OLE in house,
but OLE was really on the table for 5 years prior to it's inclusion in 3.1.
One of the only vendors to truly support OLE was Visio (they were originally
called something else, but I forget what they're name was then. They later
changed their name to Visio Corp, since nobody could remember their name).
What proof do you have that MS is still using undocumented API's in it's
apps?
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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: Tue, 9 May 2000 20:15:21 -0500
<jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)> wrote in message
news:L9BY9tzSDwrQ-pn2-YUjREz4dzyZB@localhost...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell) wrote:
> > But everybody and his brother had a beta test copy at the time and
> > there was a large public outcry before it was removed. There is
> > no reason to think it would have been removed if it were not for
> > the publicity the beta version caused.
> >
>
> Again, my copy of Windows 3.1 was _not_ a beta. It was bought retail
> (I can even show you the bloody invoice!), there is no mention of beta
> status anywhere in the documentation or in the information windows.
>
> This copy of Windows 3.1 refused to run on DR-DOS 6; there was not
> some well-meant message about possible incompatibilities with a
> non-tested product, IT WOULD NOT RUN!
Your experience is counter to what the evidence suggests. There was a patch
disk, but it was to fix some bugs in DR-DOS memory management.
> The patch-disk replaced a whole bunch of DR-DOS files with "flagged"
> ones (so I was told) that the Windows copy would no longer recognize
> as "hostile".
There is no written evidence which supports this. Can you provide some
links?
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Browsers and e-mail
Date: Tue, 9 May 2000 20:17:30 -0500
Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8f7v2f$2esn$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Later??? I have always had a problem trying to view .bat files
> from the very first tools that made this mistaken guess about
> what to do when someone clicks on their name.
Simply right click on the .bat file and choose the edit command.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 09 May 2000 21:15:38 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Which OS is WORST?
The Cat wrote:
> And I thought I was the only one that likes green screens. I think it
> dates back to my having to repair IBM 3277's and 3278's back in the
> 1970's and 80's.
>
> I find green on black easier on the eyes than black on white or white
> on black.
>
> I set the default console in kde to green on black. It works until I
> try a new theme that has it's own ideas :)
>
> On Mon, 08 May 2000 18:44:49 +0100, 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
Actually, that is why the screens were green. They could have been made
black and white but it was discovered that green on black leads to less eye
fatigue.
Gary
------------------------------
From: "Jackie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc,linux.dev.newbie
Subject: Re: Programs for Linux
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 09:14:29 +0800
Wow....so great!!! Now, I have 2 questions:
(1) What assembler is good in the Linux world (in a sense of easy to use,
stable...I guess)?
(2) What database is good for a medium size business firm? My boss may want
to re-develop the whole application software running on Linux.
Thanks for the input,
Jackie mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Stu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ????? news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Go to http://www.freshmeat.net and do a search, everything you listed is
there.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: Tue, 9 May 2000 20:25:27 -0500
mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > How exactly does the email client know that .jpg or .mp3 is what it
claims
> > to be? You could send a virus with a .jpg extension and then have a
> > different trojan rename the file types to launch the virus when the jpg
file
> > is opened. Suddenly, a jpg is no longer safe.
>
> If it ends with ".jpeg" or ".jpg" then it should be interpreted as a
> bitmap. If it is not a bitmap, it should be reported as a corrupt file.
> What other behavior would any sane person expect?
>
> The file reports itself to be a bitmap, but..... Wait!! It looks like a
> vbs script!!! Perhaps the OS should run it and see what happens!!! Yea,
> right, give me a break.
You're asking that the OS have artificial intelligence. It should be able
to recognize that a file is not what it claims to be, and somehow deduce
that it's actually a script (who's language may not even exist at the time
the OS was written).
If you think such a thing is easy, why does Unix require the #! syntax to
identify a script?
> If it ends with .jpeg, .pic, .bmp, .pcx, .gif, etc it is a bitmap. If it
> ends with .doc, it is a word file which should be opened in a sand-box,
> if word can not muster a sand-box, it should not run. Use the mime type
> is is transferred in. If it ends with .gif, but the mime type says it is
> a vbs file, then run it in a sand-box, if you can't run it in a
> sand-box, don't run it.
The mime type can be wrong as well. If the mime type says it's a gif, and
the extension says it's a gif, how do you know for sure it's a gif without
building gif decoding functionality into the email reader?
> What is so hard about this? Microsoft goes out of their way to get rid
> of clear text authentication between Windows machines, yet they'll let
> any old vbs script run from an e-mail unchecked? Stupid. The clear text
> authentication was more of an inconvenience, but it had the effect of
> reducing competition and promoting their monopoly. Clearly with outlook
> and e-mail, they don't care.
clear-text authentication is insecure.
> > And people bitch and moan that Windows already displays too many warning
> > messages.
>
> Yes, it does, jusy not in the right places.
And of course you are the one to judge that.
------------------------------
From: "Rich C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Let's POLL!
Date: Tue, 9 May 2000 21:21:42 -0400
"Jacques Guy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Since Charles Ebert is curious about reactions to this poll...
>
> > Just because some 12 year old kid launches a VB script virus,
> > and YOUR company ingests this virus, should the employee's
> > who have double clicked our the attachment using YOUR companies
> > OUTLOOK EXPRESS be disciplined?
>
> Richard Cloutier: Absolutely, UNLESS ...
> Yours faithfully: Absolutely, period. Such an employee should not
> be allowed to operate a networked computer. Stand-alone yes.
>
I agree, but in this example the employee DOES commit the error, so, IF they
were trained properly and it is not management's fault that this person was
turned loose on the internet without proper training, they should be
disciplined. Would you punish your child for doing something you never told
him/her not to do?
>
> > Do corporate institutions think they can WIN in a situation
> > where THEY gave the employee in question the power to
> > EXECUTE a virus from the software the corporation provided to
> > ALL their employee's, trained or NOT.,
>
> RC: As I said above, if the employee was trained, and said employee
> ignored such
> training in executing the virus, the employee is responsible.
> YF: The cost of training, plus the remaining risk, is disproportionate
> with
> the putative benefits of having a networked computer on every desk.
That decision should be made by each individual management organization.
They have to weigh the risks vs. the benefits, just like any other decision
is [should be] made.
> They are mostly time-wasters, in my experience. However, having a
> computer on eevery desk, all networked, may give the brass a warm
> feeling of being "at the cutting edge of technology" (note the
> cliche),
> and let them argue to the board that they are doing all the right
> things. Like, in the old days, "you never got fired for buying IBM".
> This is not rational decision-making at work, it is rain-dancing.
Which is why most companies provide limited access to the "outside" world. I
do work for several of the major nuclear power companies in the U.S. and
they RARELY, if ever, give their employees unrestricted access to the
internet. Whenever I ask them if they've been to my web site, the usual
response is: "We can't access it from work, so I go there from home and
print out the material."
>
>
> >
> > Is it intelligent for a company to have a policy, where by,
> > it is forbidden to click on any E-mail attachments?
>
> I knew this had to lead to a trap somewhere! No, it is not.
> It is exceedingly stupid, and "stupid" is an understatement.
>
>
> > Is it intelligent for a company to DRILL your systems administrator
> > for allowing the virus to come into your company, even though there is
> > NOTHING he can really do about it!
>
> A rhetorical question. Of course not.
>
> RC: IF the systems admin took reasonable precautions, such as training
> personnel, filtering email...
>
> What a waste, what unproductive activity!
More of a waste than rebuilding users' systems and purging the entire
company network of a virus? Again most companies [wisely] limit email
attachments, some to the point of not letting ANY email attachments through
the mail server.
> Yet, a direct consequence,
> of the policy of "we're at the cutting edge, one computer on every
> desk, all interconnected".
You can still have that without everyone having full internet access. That's
why there are company intranets, and caching proxy servers, and firewalls.
> So the rain-dancing shaman wastes half
> the tribe's time instructing them in the right steps, the right
> songs, and there is a week-long full-dress rehearsal at
> every update of the rain-dancing ceremonial!
>
>
> > Does it make any sense to continue to blame the 12 year old
> [...]
>
>
> RC: The 12 (or 23, or whatever) year old SHOULD be held accountable,
> even made
> an example of.
> YF: No. Emphatically no. This 12 (or 23) year-old, did the public a
> service,
> perhaps unwittingly, but still a service, by demonstrating how easy
> it is the break security in that environment, and how rapidly the
> damage can spread. He did more, BY ONE PRACTICAL DEMONSTRATION, than
> conference after conference, seminar after seminar, of system
> administrators
> could hope to demonstrate.
But it is not wise to ENCOURAGE this type of behavior in the guise of
"demonstrative education." The perp should still be made an example of.
>
> > If the organization has nothing to gain by being connected to the
internet
> > in the first place, then it would be a valid argument. But (as is the
case
> > with most companies) they are NOT connected to the 'net unless it is
> > beneficial to do so.
>
> Window-dressing (no pun intended) can be beneficial "Ladies and
> Gentlemen
> of the Board, we are at the cutting edge of technology, blah, blah..."
>
>
> > Wouldn't it be MORE intelligent to run an OS such as LINUX
>
> Once upon a time, I worked in an outfit with one Sun Workstation
> on every desk, running Unix, of course. But it was only one
> research department of a large Telco. The luminaries in Olympus
> decided on a "strategic alliance" with a software giant, and
> most of our Sun Workstations were replaced by PCs running Windows 3.1.
> Last I heard of them, the strategic alliance was dead and buried,
> and they were migrating to NT, by-passing W95. Every employee
> with a PC running NT. Usage? I'd say 99% cobbling pretty presentations
> with PowerPoint and reading e-mail. Sick-it memos, a ruler, a
> protractor,
> and a box of colour pencils on each desk would achieve as much, cheaper,
> without much risk. (Call me a Luddite if you please -- but no, I
> couldn't
> do without my home computer).
>
>
> RC: However, many
> tasks an organization needs to accomplish, can only be reasonably done
> on a
> Windows variant OS. For them, it makes more sense to increase security
> precautions and training.
>
> Disagree. "Few," not "many". Try to think back on the days before
> computers were affordable. That is not so long ago. A computer on
> every desk just leads to employees relying on the thing, rather
> than on their judgment and brains, and losing their skills.
If the head keeps flying off my hammer, I'm certainly not going to go back
to pounding nails with a rock. I use computers and Windows-based software to
perform 90 percent of my job functions, from maintaining my [unix based] web
server, to accounting, to generating Repair/Service reports, to invoicing
customers, to balancing my checkbook, to sending faxes. I use Linux for more
and more of these functions, and some others that I could not afford Windows
based software for. But I'm not going to go back to the "dark ages" just
because of a few drawbacks. I'd much rather find workarounds for the
drawbacks.
>
>
> > Microsoft is only interested in the 'net for making money. They plan to
sell
> > operating systems that don't work until you go on line and register
them, so
> > that they have their hooks into your system. They plan on selling
> > application software that resides on THEIR servers, and you PAY for the
> > privilege of editing your files on THEIR servers, where THEY have access
to
> > your data.
>
> As a matter of side interest, there is a small outfit in Malaysia, that
> offers (or rather, has been promising) this sort of service:
> www.biztone.com
>
> Some service! Pay for the privilege of having your documents physically
> outside your offices, at the mercy of a net foul-up, prying eyes, and
> on top of that, paying for every time you access them! There could not
> be so many born every minute, that this biztone outfit can hope to
> make a dollar? Or could there?
Not from me they won't.
>
>
> > I'm going to be very curious to read the answers if anybody
> > responds on this newsgroup. I would love to read the answers. What
> > are YOUR answers to these questions.
>
>
> That is why I responded. And it was more a diatribe about the
> indiscrimate use of personal computers than anything about
> OS's. As for security... everytime I receive a Word attachment
> in my e-mail, I save it, then I examine it with a binary
> editor. Same with other attachments, except .exe ones, which
> get deleted without even taking a look. (Oh, BTW, I am still
> running Win3.11, because I never could bring myself to risk
> upgrading to Win9x, although I have the CDs. I have Caldera
> OpenLinux installed too, and I occasionally dip a toe there,
> slowly learning. But when writing my own software (mostly statistical)
> and running it, I revert to plain DOS).
P.S. Why did you respond to MY response, rather than responding directly
yourself?
-- Rich C.
"Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people."
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft invents XML!
Date: Tue, 9 May 2000 20:30:27 -0500
Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Here's a link to one report of Microsoft's phony "astroturf" campaign in
> > 4/98.
> >
> > http://www.utoledo.edu/~pfritz/_news/NEWS-442.HTM
>
> Thank you. Now I'm just left wondering if RJ could have come up with
that.
If you read the story, you'll find out that the action never took place.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Steinberg)
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: 10 May 2000 01:31:23 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: > Unfortunately, it seems Microsoft did not belive this action was so
: > innocent...
: >
: > Care to explain the encryption?
: 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.
Let me bring it back to the question at hand: people encrypt messages on
the internet to protect information that they don't want to become
public. Similarly, Microsoft encrypted the piece of code that displayed
this warning message, which you claim to be an innocent, justifiable part
of the beta process.
But the fact that they encrypted it implies that they didn't want its
existance to become public knowledge.
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?
--
David Steinberg -o) In a world without walls
Computer Engineering Undergrad, UBC / \ and fences, who needs
[EMAIL PROTECTED] _\_v Windows and Gates?
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
