Linux-Advocacy Digest #446, Volume #26 Wed, 10 May 00 18:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Joe Ragosta)
Re: How to properly process e-mail (Se�n � Donnchadha)
Re: Why Solaris is better than Linux (JoeX1029)
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! (Brian Langenberger)
win millenium ("Robert L.")
Re: How to properly process e-mail (Mr Rupert)
Re: How to properly process e-mail (Mig Mig)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (tinman)
Re: How to properly process e-mail (JEDIDIAH)
Re: How to properly process e-mail (Grant Fischer)
Re: Why Solaris is better than Linux (JEDIDIAH)
Re: How to properly process e-mail (Se�n � Donnchadha)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (WickedDyno)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joe Ragosta <[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 20:12:50 GMT
In article <391985be$1$obot$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bob Germer
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 05/10/2000 at 01:48 PM,
> Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > ROTFLMAO.
>
> > So all they had to do was walk 3,000 miles carrying a year's supply of
> > food on their backs.......
>
> If they lived in Hong Kong, all they had to do was board a boat.
>
> Even if they lived 3,000 miles from the nearest border without the wall,
> why would they have to carry a year's supply of food? You sound like a
> typical wintroll.
ROTFLMAO (again).
That's the first time I've been accused of sounding like a Wintroll.
And the reason that they'd have to carry a year's supply of food is that
the vast majority of people in China at the time the wall was built were
peasants. They grew their own food and if they couldn't grow it, there
was no money to buy it.
Besides, Target Stores were closed......
--
Regards,
Joe Ragosta
Get $10 free:
https://secure.paypal.com/auction/pal=jragosta%40earthlink.net
Or get paid to browse the web (Mac or PC):
http://www.alladvantage.com/home.asp?refid=KJS595
------------------------------
From: Se�n � Donnchadha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How to properly process e-mail
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 16:13:33 -0400
[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.
>
> 'moron users' are Microsoft's target market. If they
> can't adequately address their own target market
> perhaps they should just liquidate entirely...
>
Yeah, and Chrysler should liquidate for not being able to prevent auto
crashes. Spare me the bullshit, OK Jed? Your Microsoft bashing would
have people believe that all their problems would go away if they
switched to Unix. The reality of course is exactly the opposite. There
is precisely squat in Unix that would prevent this kind of attack.
>
> 'functional' doesn't require doc-scripting flim-flam.
>
No shit, but as I'm sure you know and are just pretending to be too
stupid to understand, scripting has nothing to do with it. The VBS
file was a classic Trojan horse, and as such it could have done what
it did in the form of a compiled binary or any number of other things.
>
> My Unix mail system is plenty functional, even more so
> than any WinDOS facility that I would use simply because
> I never need fear the contents of an email.
>
So your mail system is incapable of launching an executable
attachment? Doesn't sound very functional to me.
>
> I can actually read all my mail. ALL of it.
>
Ooh, how profound!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JoeX1029)
Subject: Re: Why Solaris is better than Linux
Date: 10 May 2000 20:15:46 GMT
i agree and if myself or the average person could afford Solaris or a Sun SPARC
box i'd be running it. Thats the upside to Linux, free and runs on just about
anything.
------------------------------
From: Brian Langenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: 10 May 2000 20:21:22 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Se�n � Donnchadha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Brian Langenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:>:
:>: Examining the file to determine type is just about the worst thing you
:>: can do. It's unreliable and inefficient (requiring sophisticated
:>: pattern matching that doesn't always work), and you're screwed if you
:>: don't have read access.
:>
:>Eh? Examining the file is the *only* 100% reliable way of telling
:>what the file is.
:>
: Is that why file(1) often indicates "English text" for C source files
: and vice versa? 100% reliable my ass.
C files that start with comments are difficult to detect
the exact language for. But the fact that you know it is
text makes the determination easy since you can open it up
in any editor and have a look. Binary formats are far more
important by comparison. Do you have any binaries that are
misidentified by find(1)?
:>file(1) is quite capable of figuring them out
:>both quickly and accurately - and often you don't need the whole file
:>either.
: Of course you don't need the whole file. But you still have to open
: each file, read some of it, and close it. This becomes a lot of work
: if you're displaying a directory's worth of file types.
If we're getting into file manager territory, find(1) data would be
a good candidate for caching. xv's visual schnauser uses something
like this when it identifies file types in a directory on-the-fly -
including compressed files, postscripts and mislabeled images.
It will pick out everything of interest from a directory regardless
of name, for example. This is the sort of functionality I like.
:>Any other method (like suffixes or resource forks) is just
:>taking someone else's word for what the file really is.
: Yep, and that's the way it should be. That's why Web servers put the
: MIME type into the response header. The originator of the information
: specifies the type of the information. Whether or not you believe it
: depends on how much you trust the source.
But does anyone really trust the source? Under Netscape 4, the
results are mixed. Apache uses file suffixes to generate
a MIME type but Netscape doesn't always believe it. Renaming
a .png to a .jpeg will result in an image/jpeg MIME type but
Netscape will show it as a PNG image, regardless (probably
from a generic image renderer that ignores MIME types). OTOH,
renaming an .html file to a .gif will generate a bad image
on the browser's end.
:>The best way is to ignore such "hints" and figure out the
:>file on your own because labels can't be trusted. In other
:>words, just because someone says an attachment is a love letter
:>doesn't make it so...
:>
: I disagree. When you double-click on that attachment, neither its name
: nor its contents determine how it's executed. It's the file type tag,
: be it a filename extension or some resource fork thing.
On the web, we've traded a bit of trust (in that a .html file is actually
HTML) for a lot of speed. In email the amount of attachments are
few compared to the total number of emails and this level of speed
really isn't necessary. Thus, I expect a good email app to take the
extra effort of analyzing what I have in my mailbox so I don't have
to file(1) them on my own. When it comes to binary formats like
Windows executables, this sort of help is invaluable not only from
a security aspect but from an administrative one.
In short, the MIME type is a nice label but I'd like my apps to do
the analyzing on their own.
------------------------------
From: "Robert L." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: win millenium
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 20:23:28 GMT
they have not corect the MBR bug, my lilo have been erase.
BTW, i have 2 rescue disk, i was certain that the mbr gonna
be erase, so i protect myself ( and Linux ).
oh, i'm beta tester for Win millenium, and i have the french beta 3.
after 6 years, they have not delete the MBR bug, what a great companie !!!!!
Linux bug are delete in almost 1 day.
So, which one is better?
PS I have 2 computer, 1 with dual boot WinME/Linux RH5.2, and the other with
only Linux RH 5.2
The second one have 8 Meg ram, so it's imposible to even run the install
program.
------------------------------
From: Mr Rupert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How to properly process e-mail
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 15:22:15 -0500
Mr. � Donnchadha, were you not exposed as a corporate shill in the newsgroup
comp.lang.java.advocacy recently? I believe so.
--
Mr Rupert
"Se�n � Donnchadha" 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.
>
> >
> > 'moron users' are Microsoft's target market. If they
> > can't adequately address their own target market
> > perhaps they should just liquidate entirely...
> >
>
> Yeah, and Chrysler should liquidate for not being able to prevent auto
> crashes. Spare me the bullshit, OK Jed? Your Microsoft bashing would
> have people believe that all their problems would go away if they
> switched to Unix. The reality of course is exactly the opposite. There
> is precisely squat in Unix that would prevent this kind of attack.
>
> >
> > 'functional' doesn't require doc-scripting flim-flam.
> >
>
> No shit, but as I'm sure you know and are just pretending to be too
> stupid to understand, scripting has nothing to do with it. The VBS
> file was a classic Trojan horse, and as such it could have done what
> it did in the form of a compiled binary or any number of other things.
>
> >
> > My Unix mail system is plenty functional, even more so
> > than any WinDOS facility that I would use simply because
> > I never need fear the contents of an email.
> >
>
> So your mail system is incapable of launching an executable
> attachment? Doesn't sound very functional to me.
>
> >
> > I can actually read all my mail. ALL of it.
> >
>
> Ooh, how profound!
------------------------------
From: Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How to properly process e-mail
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 22:30:52 +0200
> 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.
This is correct
> 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.
This is not correct! Just today at work i received some spam mail that when
it appeared in the previewpane automaticly launched IE and went to some
weird URL. This is potentially a security risk!
Cheers
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (tinman)
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 16:48:52 -0400
In article <39195c3d$20$obot$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bob Germer
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 05/09/2000 at 08:01 PM,
> WickedDyno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > 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.
>
> What a person does in private is not concern of mine. When a pervert
> openly advocates an immoral lifestyle, he or she become anathema.
>
So Bob, what's the name of your country club?
--
______
tinman
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How to properly process e-mail
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 20:49:00 GMT
On Wed, 10 May 2000 16:13:33 -0400, Se�n � 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
...stating that ANYTHING can be dangerous.
That's hardly a useful warning. That's simply fear mongering.
That still leaves the end user far too responsible for their
own security. These are users not expected to be particularly
saavy or expected to be aware of even the distinction between
a document and a program.
>phrased warning. That's not "blindly", nor "automatically". Look the
>words up if you have to.
>
>>
>> 'moron users' are Microsoft's target market. If they
>> can't adequately address their own target market
>> perhaps they should just liquidate entirely...
>>
>
>Yeah, and Chrysler should liquidate for not being able to prevent auto
>crashes. Spare me the bullshit, OK Jed? Your Microsoft bashing would
Actually, a Chrysler will stil be fairly good at protecting the
idiot user from their own stupidity. Then again, there is federal
regulation madating this behaivor.
>have people believe that all their problems would go away if they
>switched to Unix. The reality of course is exactly the opposite. There
>is precisely squat in Unix that would prevent this kind of attack.
It merely wouldn't automatically execute documents.
>
>>
>> 'functional' doesn't require doc-scripting flim-flam.
>>
>
>No shit, but as I'm sure you know and are just pretending to be too
>stupid to understand, scripting has nothing to do with it. The VBS
>file was a classic Trojan horse, and as such it could have done what
>it did in the form of a compiled binary or any number of other things.
Yes, but unlike the old common bootsector virus, there would be
no compelling reason for the end user to manuall execute such a
trojan on their own.
>
>>
>> My Unix mail system is plenty functional, even more so
>> than any WinDOS facility that I would use simply because
>> I never need fear the contents of an email.
>>
>
>So your mail system is incapable of launching an executable
>attachment? Doesn't sound very functional to me.
It's perfectly capable of that. It's just not configured
to do so. I'm also at a loss (and so are you apparently)
to come up with a compelling motivation to actually run
programs from one's email client.
>
>>
>> I can actually read all my mail. ALL of it.
>>
>
>Ooh, how profound!
Strangely enough it is.
!(Microsoft): The power to READ all of your email without fear
or paranoia from the previously absurdity: the email virus.
--
In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Grant Fischer)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How to properly process e-mail
Date: 10 May 2000 20:52:12 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 10 May 2000 15:22:15 -0500, Mr Rupert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Mr. � Donnchadha, were you not exposed as a corporate shill in the newsgroup
>comp.lang.java.advocacy recently? I believe so.
No. Sean was shown to be posting under a pseudonym, and that's all.
--
Grant Fischer (gfischer at the domain hub.org)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Why Solaris is better than Linux
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 20:53:47 GMT
On 10 May 2000 20:15:46 GMT, JoeX1029 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>i agree and if myself or the average person could afford Solaris or a Sun SPARC
>box i'd be running it. Thats the upside to Linux, free and runs on just about
>anything.
Had Solaris circa 1993 simply supported the hardware that I was
running at the time, I likely would be running it still. This is
despite the cost. Ditto for NeXTstep.
Sun LOST their window of opportunity. I'm not quite sure what they
think they gain by gouging potential adopters with a $75 mediakit.
--
In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: Se�n � Donnchadha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How to properly process e-mail
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 17:29:04 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Grant Fischer) wrote:
>On Wed, 10 May 2000 15:22:15 -0500, Mr Rupert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Mr. � Donnchadha, were you not exposed as a corporate shill in the newsgroup
>>comp.lang.java.advocacy recently? I believe so.
>
>No. Sean was shown to be posting under a pseudonym, and that's all.
>
Yes. Also shown was the fact that I work for an ISV on the US east
coast. I do not and have never worked for Microsoft in any capacity.
The opinions I post are my own.
------------------------------
From: WickedDyno <[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 18:06:19 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
tholenbot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>WickedDyno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>> And does he answer the question?
>
>Don't you know?
Yes.
>> Why, of course not!
>
>Prove it.
Read his post.
--
| Andrew Glasgow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> |
| SCSI is *NOT* magic. There are *fundamental technical |
| reasons* why it is necessary to sacrifice a young goat |
| to your SCSI chain now and then. -- John Woods |
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
