Linux-Advocacy Digest #431, Volume #26 Tue, 9 May 00 23:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: KDE is better than Gnome ("none2")
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! ("Rich C")
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! (abraxas)
Re: computer viruses on LINUX (abraxas)
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: KDE is better than Gnome (Mike Khalili)
Re: Microsoft invents XML! (herodotus)
Re: Linux will remain immune (abraxas)
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! (abraxas)
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: Microsoft: STAY THE FUCK OFF THE NET!!! (Roger)
Re: Microsoft: STAY THE FUCK OFF THE NET!!! (Roger)
Re: Linux will remain immune (Chris Lee)
Re: Microsoft invents XML! (Eric Bennett)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Eric Bennett)
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Eric Bennett)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: Tue, 9 May 2000 21:16:19 -0500
mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > 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).
> >
> I am saying that it should not try to guess. If it ends with a .jpg, run
> it in the application which is registered as a handler for jpeg files.
> If the program is unable to read the bitmap, it says the image is
> corrupt and stops at that..
That's exactly what is happening here. The email program is not guessing.
The email program is doing exactly what the user told it to do "Execute the
registered application for this file type". The fact that file types are
user defineable, means that the application cannot *KNOW* that a .vbs file
is a vbscript. It might be some other type of application that also uses
that extension. The user (or the installed application) may have changed
the association to something else.
The email program doesn't know anything about the content.
> > If you think such a thing is easy, why does Unix require the #! syntax
to
> > identify a script?
> >
> It isn't too easy, that's the point. If it ends with .jpeg, it should
> not matter if it is a script file, you should not be able to run it..
> right?
If the association for .jpeg has been changed to WSH, it will run.
> > 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?
>
> It does not matter. If it ends with gif, and the mime type says it a
> gif, but it is, in fact, a vbs script, it should be treated as a corrupt
> gif file, to somehow determine it is a vbs and then run it, despite the
> extension and mime-type is silly. You have no point.
And how does the email program know that it's a corrupt gif?
------------------------------
From: "none2" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: KDE is better than Gnome
Crossposted-To: comp.windows.x.kde,tw.bbs.comp.linux
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 14:18:18 +0000
one thing i hate about KDE is that
(a) it looks likes windows
(b) gnome doesnt
even KDE2, is going down the path of intregated www browser in file
manager tool,too all those KDE users who want Windows type interface, how
about.. run windows? I Installed linux to get away from windows, not to
see another wannbe windows interface. KDE is a toy. QT sucks as a widget
looks bland, and licensing issues make it undesirable to use.
btw I run Windowmaker/Gnome, and it looks *nothin* like windows.
linux and damn proud of it.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: Tue, 9 May 2000 21:24:39 -0500
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? Since
file types are user defineable, the .mp3 association can point to anything,
including WSH.
> So really, the email client needs to know which applications are not safe
> to call. As an example, suppose I create a file called myfile.jpg and put
> in it the following line:
>
> rm -rf $HOME/*
>
> If I open the file with the following command:
>
> kview myfile.jpg
>
> kview will report that it couldn't load the image, as it's not in jpeg
> format. But if I dare type the following command:
>
> sh myfile.jpg
>
> I will be sorry!!
And what if there's a link to sh called kview in your path?
> Similarily, if I 1) create a file in Word with a nasty macro in it 2) Save
> it as evilfile.doc 3) rename it to evilfile.mp3 4) right click on it from
> Explorer and select "open with" and 5) browse to and choose Winword.exe
> then Winword will read it and recognize it's a word doc, open it, and
> execute the macro.
>
> So it is not simply the untrusted data that is dangerous, it is placing
> the untrusted data in the hands of an application that can do harm with
> it. You can pass a .vbs file to notepad, as notepad won't try to execute
> it's contents.
But how do you know that notepad is actually being executed? And should
that be hardcoded?
> So the email client needs to know what applications trustingly execute
> files passed to them and not pass untrusted data to those applications.
> There is no reason that Microsoft can't add a registry value for all
> registered applications and require that an applicaton have that value set
> (meaning the application is safe) before Outlook can pass untrusted data
> to it. That would go a long way towards securing Outlook and certainly
> cost MS alot less than the estimated $5,000,000,000 this one virus alone
> has costed industry.
So now you're asking that outlook perform the duties of the shell (which is
to determine what application to run for a given document). How come unix
doesn't prevent the creation of link files to potentially dangerous
commands?
> >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.
>
> What "different trojan"? How do inject this "different trojan" into the
> system if your data is only being passed to a jpeg viewer.
A common tactic is to infect otherwise trusted applications with a trojan
which does not itself do anything bad to the system. Instead, it enables
another program to do bad things. This was an early problem with IE and
Netscape. executable were being downloaded as jpeg images, which were being
displayed as broken images of course. But later, a trojan would activate
the downloaded content from the cache. This is what caused MS to make the
cache both invisible and randomly named.
> >Suddenly, a jpg is no longer safe.
>
> As long as you don't pass it to the wrong application it is.
And how does the application prevent that?
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: Tue, 9 May 2000 21:26:01 -0500
mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > The flaw in your argument is that shell itself doesn't know what the
content
> > of a document it is or what it's capable of. All it knows is that .vbs
> > files are associated with the WSH program. When asked to execute .vbs
> > files, it executes WSH instead, passing the document to WSH to do with
as it
> > pleases. The shell neither cares, nor wants to care about what the
actual
> > document contains. This is a user-defineable process.
>
> This is the exact point!!! The mail program should not be running things
> with the shell unless it can protect the system. If it does not have the
> notion of a sand-box, it should not open the script. Period.
Again, you're asking that the email program KNOWS it's a script. It
doesn't.
------------------------------
From: "Rich C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: Tue, 9 May 2000 22:23:49 -0400
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > Rich C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:3918bcf8@news...
> > > > It is not the mailer's responsibility to keep track of every
different
> > > > filetype and whether or not a given one is dangerous. I would have
> > though
> > > a
> > > > *nix user would be horrified at the very thought of such a thing.
> > >
> > > IF a mailer has the capability to preview (ie, "open") files of a
> > particular
> > > type, then it is more than a simple mailer; in fact it is a SHELL of
sorts
> > > (as MS has claimed all along that the browser is a shell which can
access
> > > retrieve, and "open" (execute) files from any network source, from the
> > > user's file system to the internet.) And such a program should have
the
> > > capability to distinguish a simple data file that it knows how to open
and
> > > show to me from a "dangerous" one which it knows nothing about.
> >
> > The flaw in your argument is that shell itself doesn't know what the
content
> > of a document it is or what it's capable of. All it knows is that .vbs
> > files are associated with the WSH program. When asked to execute .vbs
> > files, it executes WSH instead, passing the document to WSH to do with
as it
> > pleases. The shell neither cares, nor wants to care about what the
actual
> > document contains. This is a user-defineable process.
>
> This is the exact point!!! The mail program should not be running things
> with the shell unless it can protect the system. If it does not have the
> notion of a sand-box, it should not open the script. Period.
...or send the script anywhere else to be run.
A side note Mark:
Can mail programs and browsers be set up to run with even LESS privileges
than the user who invokes them? For example, say I have a bunch of files in
my user directory, and I run a mail program that can ONLY access my mailbox
folder and my address book. The mail program passes an attachment (say a
"dangerous" script I received) to the shell for execution, but it only
executes with the privileges of the mailer program, not my user privileges.
It doesn't even have access to the rest of my user files. Is this possible
under Linux? How (in 25 words or less :o)) would one go about it?
[sigsnip]
-- Rich C.
"Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people."
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: 10 May 2000 02:22:54 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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).
MacOS can do this.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Subject: Re: computer viruses on LINUX
Date: 10 May 2000 02:27:03 GMT
The Ghost In The Machine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>If its a multiuser system and not just a personal workstation, this can
>>lead to trouble.
> This is true. Another idea: one can also 'ssh -l root localhost' to
> oneself. A little strange, perhaps, but it should work reasonably well.
> (A warning: I got the message "Accepting localhost without checking"
> or something, the first time I try it. A little paranoia, I guess... :-) )
Ive actually had occasion to do the above with some strange and duct-tape
and string authentication rigging...works quite well actually, even though
it admittedly sets off my personal "what the hell are you doing!" alarms...:)
>>It was nessesary to run actual windowmanagers and such as root in this
>>particular situation. Look, I dont like it any more than the next person,
>>but again, there are no absolutes.
> Except that Microsoft is absolutely one of the worst operating systems :-).
Agreed. Ok so there is ONE absolute. But thats it.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: Tue, 9 May 2000 21:36:51 -0500
abraxas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8fah5u$2ema$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > 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).
>
> MacOS can do this.
MacOS uses a resource fork entry to determin file type. This can be
modified and frequently is.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Khalili)
Crossposted-To: comp.windows.x.kde,tw.bbs.comp.linux
Subject: Re: KDE is better than Gnome
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 02:28:55 GMT
On Wed, 10 May 2000 14:18:18 +0000, none2 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>one thing i hate about KDE is that
> (a) it looks likes windows
> (b) gnome doesnt
>
>even KDE2, is going down the path of intregated www browser in file
>manager tool,too all those KDE users who want Windows type interface, how
>about.. run windows? I Installed linux to get away from windows, not to
>see another wannbe windows interface. KDE is a toy. QT sucks as a widget
>looks bland, and licensing issues make it undesirable to use.
>
>btw I run Windowmaker/Gnome, and it looks *nothin* like windows.
>
>
>
>linux and damn proud of it.
Not to feed the trolls, but I started using linux because I wanted quality,
stable, powerful software and because I seeing the source is a major plus.
KDE fulfills all those criterea. I did not start using linux because of the
user interface of it or windows.
Finally, KDE and GNOME IMHO are both PARC-derived WIMP GUIs, just like the
Mac interface, the Windows UI, the BeOS UI, the OS/2 UI, ect. The only
difference between these UIs are mostly superficial based upon pretty colors
and the like. The PARC derived WIMP UI has become like the steering wheel
of computing. Everyone has one, they all look basically the same, everyone
tries to tweak a bit, move the horn location around, put a few controls
around there, etc. but they are at the core indistiguishable. BTW,
Windowmaker is a clone of the NeXT UI, but does not really encompass
everything cool about the NeXT UI (if you really want to know the wonder
that is a NeXT, you can buy NeXT hardware very cheaply nowadays). Windows
also adopted a number of UI enhancements from the NeXT.
IMHO, KDE is the most well-developed, user friendly, and complete desktop
environment on the unix platform, and I happen to like the nice, relatively
clean c++ api. In short, it's good quality, and to me "it doesn't suck" is
a much bigger feature than "it looks different than windows."
Anyways, back to the trolls, followups set to where the flaming belongs.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Microsoft invents XML!
From: herodotus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Date: Tue, 09 May 2000 19:28:41 -0700
In article <8f8loi$h08$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "2 + 2" <2-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It had MarcA who
had the vision, it is true, to make the browser a terminal with a
GUI. MarcA
has probably the programming talents of an average VisualBasic
programmer.
He seems to have shot his wad on one idea, an innovation to be
sure
So it's Mark A. 1, Bill G. 0.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux will remain immune
Date: 10 May 2000 02:30:05 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "JEDIDIAH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Wed, 10 May 2000 09:27:07 +1000, C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >So everyone invlolved with sendmail over the years must stupid then??
>> >Sendmail has had its fair share of remote root exploits, which should be
>> >impossible seeing its open source.
>>
>> So then, try to exploit some of them and get back to us.\
> Thats not the point. They are already well documented.
Indeed they are. AFAIK, there hasnt been an exploit since the release
of 8.8.8.
> They should not have
> been possible in the first place "because sendmail is open source."
Incorrect; they should have been fixed immediately---which they were.
Sendmail is now just about as tight as any application ive ever heard
of...because its open source.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: 10 May 2000 02:31:35 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> abraxas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8fah5u$2ema$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > 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).
>>
>> MacOS can do this.
> MacOS uses a resource fork entry to determin file type. This can be
> modified and frequently is.
Indeed; in fact my favorite name for a program that can do such a thing
is 'forker'. Love it.
Yet no one seems to be able to embedd MacOS-specific viruses in jpegs.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: 10 May 2000 02:34:24 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Any vb script that makes system calls, fetches data from a URL, modifies
: the registry, looks at the e-mail address book. These would be good
: starters. Any binary executable too.
That would be a nice idea if it were realistically feasible, but I'm
not certain that it is, because to be able to determine that a VBS
script was "safe," it would need to have enough intelligence to parse
and analyze it rather thoroughly.
You certainly could detect a certain amount of mischief by simple
keyword scans, but you'd miss a lot too.
Far better IMO to simply consider *all* scripts (and any Office file
formats that can have auto-execute macros) unsafe until proven
otherwise, and simply refuse to do anything directly with them other
than save them to a file.
Joe
------------------------------
From: Roger <roger@.>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.fan.bill-gates,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft: STAY THE FUCK OFF THE NET!!!
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 02:39:57 GMT
On Mon, 08 May 2000 05:47:53 GMT, someone claiming to be JEDIDIAH
wrote:
>On Sun, 07 May 2000 23:31:37 GMT, Roger <roger@.> wrote:
>>On 5 May 2000 07:29:52 GMT, someone claiming to be Loren Petrich
>>wrote:
>>>In article <UkqQ4.77847$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>>Otto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>Why don't you teach them how to prevent viruses on their machine? Had you
>>>>done it at the first time....
>>> Why should that be necessary in the first place?????
>>Because the popularity of the platform makes it a attractive target
>>for the folks who write such?
> Such things can quite simply be architected away.
How exactly are you going to architect away the ability for the user
to run executable code without seriously impacting the usefulness of
the OS?
> It shouldn't be necessary. Such burdens on the 'poor novices'
> that can't handle the like of ipchains or even simpler things
> are simply intolerable.
What burden are you talking about?
> A novice end user using a simply email program should not be
> the equivalent of a moron juggling with chain saws.
And is not, in this case.
------------------------------
From: Roger <roger@.>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.fan.bill-gates
Subject: Re: Microsoft: STAY THE FUCK OFF THE NET!!!
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 02:41:45 GMT
On Mon, 08 May 2000 15:23:51 GMT, someone claiming to be JEDIDIAH
wrote:
>On Mon, 8 May 2000 12:20:53 +0100, Geoff Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>In article <8evf8k$s78$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>>> Well, it's all part of this integration of things, web stuff,
>>> interactive apps, e-mail, to try make it all look the same.
>>> Needless to say, that makes it easy for beginners to use,
>>> but makes it easy to hack as well.
>>The technology to make it perfectly safe is available now - and it's all
>>open software. MS appears to have made a decision that security is
> ...it doesn't even require open software. It just requires sane
> system design. Microsoft could either decide not to just run any
> random bit of code some random poorly coded app (their own) might
> tell it to or to put some sort of default sandbox enviroment into
> their script decoders.
Well, since the situation under question does not involve the running
of any random bit of code, but instead an active decision on the part
of the user to run code instead of saving it as is the default, your
point would be ... ?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chris Lee)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux will remain immune
Date: 10 May 2000 02:42:50 GMT
In article <Vf3S4.7917$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
>
>
>"JEDIDIAH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Wed, 10 May 2000 09:27:07 +1000, C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >So everyone invlolved with sendmail over the years must stupid then??
>> >Sendmail has had its fair share of remote root exploits, which should be
>> >impossible seeing its open source.
>>
>> So then, try to exploit some of them and get back to us.\
>
>Thats not the point. They are already well documented. They should not have
>been possible in the first place "because sendmail is open source."
>(according to
>http://www.cnn.com/2000/TECH/computing/05/09/linux.immune.idg/index.html)
>
English translation of Microsoft-Stooge speak:
"I tried the sendmail exploits and they don't work anymore"
------------------------------
From: Eric Bennett <[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, 09 May 2000 22:54:37 -0500
In article <iR2S4.342$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik Funkenbusch"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Here's a link to one report of Microsoft's phony "astroturf" campaign
> > > in
> > > 4/98.
> > >
> > > http://www.utoledo.edu/~pfritz/_news/NEWS-442.HTM
> >
> > Thank you. Now I'm just left wondering if RJ could have come up with
> that.
>
> If you read the story, you'll find out that the action never took place.
Only because their cover was blown. And at first, they tried to claim
that there was nothing wrong or unethical about doing it.
High-level MS execs were in on this. It was quite cute when the press
asked one of them about the plan and a meeting on the subject that had
taken place in (IIRC) Chicago... he denied knowing anything about it,
and the reporter then confronted him with proof that he had actually
been at the meeting! Typical Microsoft.
--
Eric Bennett ( http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/ )
Cornell University / Chemistry & Chemical Biology
Hofstadter's Law: It always takes longer than you expect,even when you take into
account Hofstadter's Law.
------------------------------
From: Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Tue, 09 May 2000 22:56:24 -0500
In article <oh2S4.335$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik Funkenbusch"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> David Steinberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8f9jt2$sml$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > 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?
>
> Many people encrypt messages on the Internet. Is evidence of encryption
> supposed to be evidence of guilt?
>
Does Microsoft usually encrypt its error messages? Why do you suppose
they encrypted this particular one (which, as I understand, was not
encrypted in the betas)?
--
Eric Bennett ( http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/ )
Cornell University / Chemistry & Chemical Biology
Hofstadter's Law: It always takes longer than you expect,even when you take into
account Hofstadter's Law.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: 9 May 2000 21:58:53 -0500
In article <DZ1S4.332$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>How is the OS to know which documents launch apps that simply display data
>and which ones do something with it? (for instance, zip archives don't just
>display data, they can create new files).
It isn't an OS issue - it is a mailer issue because it is the mailer
starting the program. How long would it take you to pick a list
that you would trust to process anything someone might send you?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Tue, 09 May 2000 22:57:57 -0500
In article
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
WickedDyno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <UgYR4.177$v3.2852@uchinews>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> (david raoul derbes) wrote:
> <s>
> >For a decade or more we've heard about this Chinese wall between
> >apps and OS development, right?
>
> Eh? I haven't encountered this metaphor before. Vas ist los?
>From Gleick's excellent 1995 article:
http://www.around.com/microsoft.html
=====
The flow of inside information will remain a critical issue for the
antitrust investigators. In the 1980's, Microsoft executives often spoke
of a "Chinese wall" between the systems group, responsible for DOS and
Windows, and the applications group, responsible for the programs that
ran in those operating environments. Ballmer himself once said there was
"a very clean separation" -- "It's like the separation of church and
state." Competitors were dubious, knowing that all neurons at Microsoft
led to Bill Gates; these days Microsoft executives take a different
tack. They deny that the concept of a Chinese wall ever existed. They
admit that their own developers sometimes get an edge in knowing how to
take advantage of new Windows features before the knowledge spreads to
competitors, but they insist that the knowledge does spread sooner or
later�because it is in their interest to make sure that everyone writes
for Windows�and they say that's as level as the playing field needs to
be.
=====
--
Eric Bennett ( http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/ )
Cornell University / Chemistry & Chemical Biology
Hofstadter's Law: It always takes longer than you expect,even when you take into
account Hofstadter's Law.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
