Linux-Advocacy Digest #432, Volume #26 Wed, 10 May 00 00:13:09 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Eric Bennett)
Re: Browsers and e-mail (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Peter Ammon)
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 ("Keith T. Williams")
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Linux will remain immune ("C")
Re: Linux will remain immune (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (David Steinberg)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (nohow)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Joseph)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 22:59:13 -0500
In article
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
WickedDyno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think we made the fatal error of using Windows PCs and Macintoshes.
> OS/2 PCs are the only things that could save us, right Bob? Not to
> mention kicking out all those E-Ville homosexuals and L*b*r*l D*m*cr*ts.
We have an OS/2 PC! I've only seen it turned on once in my three years
here. I turned it on once to make sure the monitor still worked.
--
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: Browsers and e-mail
Date: 9 May 2000 22:07:59 -0500
In article <8F2S4.339$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>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.
>
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?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
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 22:26:31 -0500
I think the concept of a chinese wall is pretty ludicrous these days
anyways. Don't you think that developers who once worked for the OS
division might eventually work for Applications? People move around a lot.
Lots of people that work at MS once worked for other companies and vice
versa.
It's getting to the point that cross-pollonization is getting pretty hard to
stop.
Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 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 > for Windows > 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.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: Tue, 9 May 2000 22:30:25 -0500
Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8faj9d$2c7o$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <DZ1S4.332$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> >How is the OS to know which documents launch apps that simply display
data
> >and which ones do something with it? (for instance, zip archives don't
just
> >display data, they can create new files).
>
> It isn't an OS issue - it is a mailer issue because it is the mailer
> starting the program. How long would it take you to pick a list
> that you would trust to process anything someone might send you?
Based only on file extensions? You can't be sure that *ANY* file extension
means what it claims to mean unless you also build in code to validate the
data against that file type (meaning it knows how to read a jpeg file to
determine if it's valid).
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: 9 May 2000 22:28:04 -0500
In article <7E3S4.349$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> 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.
All it would take is a list that the mailer can consult after looking
up the association.
>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).
It could have a safe-alternate for some of them, but mostly it
should just avoide starting anything but the safe ones. Since
there is a preview mode, the code for content type detection
and display of various types must already be there anyway.
>How come unix
>doesn't prevent the creation of link files to potentially dangerous
>commands?
In general it does, unless your PATH includes directories writable
by you. If you don't ordinarily do programming or scripting this
is a bad idea, and if you do you should put your area last in
the PATH so a trojan there won't be executed instead of the
system copy with the same name.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
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 23:41:13 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Eric Bennett wrote:
>
> 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)?
I believe it was encrypted in both the last beta (which was the first
place it was found) and in the release.
-Peter
------------------------------
From: "Keith T. Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.lang.basic
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: Tue, 9 May 2000 23:45:48 -0400
I do. I have 30GB of SCSI holding over 50GB of data.
Geo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> You avoided that "Stac won their lawsuit". :)
> The whole thing became academic anyway with big-big hard drives under
> new technology. Anyone compress anymore? None that I know of.
> Cheers,
> G
>
> Roger wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 5 May 2000 13:26:48 -0700, someone claiming to be Bob May
> > wrote:
> >
> > >I was working for a company that was doing some work for Stac and I
> > >can tell you that they were really frosted off when they found out
> > >that microcrud had stolen thier idea and recoded it from the code that
> > >Stac had provided to them.
> >
> > You misspelled "that Microsoft had purchased technology from Veritas
> > which Veritas had licensed from Stac."
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: Tue, 9 May 2000 23:00:37 -0500
Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8fal04$2fvs$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >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.
>
> All it would take is a list that the mailer can consult after looking
> up the association.
But that's just it. The mailer doesn't look up the association. The shell
does. The mailer just passes the document to the shell.
And what sort of list might that be? filenames can be renamed. You can't
rely on the name of the program.
> >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).
>
> It could have a safe-alternate for some of them, but mostly it
> should just avoide starting anything but the safe ones. Since
> there is a preview mode, the code for content type detection
> and display of various types must already be there anyway.
The preview mode simply creates an IE window to display the content. The
mailer doesn't know anything about the preview, only that the mime type
claims it's of a type that can be previewed and the mailer passes the mime
attachment to the proper preview subsystem (usually IE).
> >How come unix
> >doesn't prevent the creation of link files to potentially dangerous
> >commands?
>
> In general it does, unless your PATH includes directories writable
> by you. If you don't ordinarily do programming or scripting this
> is a bad idea, and if you do you should put your area last in
> the PATH so a trojan there won't be executed instead of the
> system copy with the same name.
Path variables are user-defineable.
It's pretty common to put the current directory first in your path since
this reduces lag time for local commands and allows you to create local
versions of things.
------------------------------
Reply-To: "C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux will remain immune
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 13:55:47 +1000
"Chris Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8faiba$h3q$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 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"
Read the F**Ken post.
I'll make it easy for you
Quote:
"Linux and much of its application software is written and distributed by
people who understand the value of open source. Put bluntly, most developers
in the Linux community would not be stupid enough to create a program as
insecure and dangerous as Outlook. And if anyone were foolish enough to do
so in the open source community, such a design would not be likely to
survive the peer review it would receive. "
(http://www.cnn.com/2000/TECH/computing/05/09/linux.immune.idg/index.html)
And I say
> >> >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.
Hello????? - see my point. The fact that sendmail, which has been around
longer than I can remember, and has had numerous remote root and other
exploits, demonstrates that the open source model is NOT foolproof regarding
security issues.
Also, where did I makie any reference to MS????
Fact is, I choose not to jump on the hype and FUD bandwagon about any
technology, whether that be Linux (the reigning "King of FUD", with MS a
close second), open source, MS software or whatever. Its a pitty (for linux)
that so many linvocates (like you) have such closed minds.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux will remain immune
Date: 9 May 2000 22:55:55 -0500
In article <e11S4.7829$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 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.
Bugs show up everywhere. With sendmail the fixes have always been
available immediately after discovery. With closed source there
may very well be a small group of people aware of and possibly
taking advantage of bugs over a long period of time. The point
is that you don't and can't know for sure.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
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 04:04:05 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: I could really care less. The point of the matter is that no such message
: occured in the retail product.
Actually, the point of the matter is that Microsoft did it for one purpose
only: to damage the competition. The fact that they encrypted it strongly
supports this motivation. The fact that they disabled it in the final
release does nothing to disprove it.
With all the evidence to the contrary, do you really believe that error
message was there for a legitimate reason?
--
David Steinberg -o) In a world without walls
Computer Engineering Undergrad, UBC / \ and fences, who needs
[EMAIL PROTECTED] _\_v Windows and Gates?
------------------------------
From: nohow <[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 21:11:34 -0700
On Tue, 9 May 2000 22:26:31 -0500, "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>I think the concept of a chinese wall is pretty ludicrous these days
>anyways. Don't you think that developers who once worked for the OS
>division might eventually work for Applications? People move around a lot.
>Lots of people that work at MS once worked for other companies and vice
>versa.
>
>It's getting to the point that cross-pollonization is getting pretty hard to
>stop.
>
Hard to stop? They never attempted to.
>Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> 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 > for Windows > 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.
>
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 09 May 2000 21:10:56 -0400
From: Joseph <[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
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> <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.
Same lame argument used over and over.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
