Linux-Advocacy Digest #436, Volume #26 Wed, 10 May 00 06:13:04 EDT
Contents:
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: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Peter Ammon)
Re: KDE is better than Gnome (bob@nospam)
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: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! (M. Buchenrieder)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Linux will remain immune (2:1)
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! (mlw)
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! (mlw)
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! (mlw)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (John Poltorak)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 04:23:09 -0500
Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > I think Microsoft has a right to warn people about possible
> > incompatibilities. There were documented memory management bugs in
DR-DOS
> > (these were fixed in a patch later).
>
> MS does NOT have a right to warn people of possible incompatibilites.
> But we know more. MS documents show the intention of the code was to
> disparage DR-DOS. Slam dunk.
They don't have the right to tell people that something doesn't work well
with their product? Why not?
MS documents also show the fact that DR-DOS had problems with Windows.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/991105-000023.html
Brad Silverberg emailed Allchin on 27 September 1991:
"drdos has problems running windows today, and I assume will
have more problems in the future."
Allchin replied: "You should make sure it has problems in
the future. :-)",
Now, one could argue that the smiley was meant only as a joke, but even if
you take the comment as real it still proves that Microsoft was aware of
technical reasons why DR-DOS had troubles.
> > More to the point, Microsoft probably decided the message would probably
> > create more problems than it solved. Software development is like that.
A
> > fix is often put in then removed later.
>
> No. It solved no technical problem. Evidence showed the intention was
> to disparage DR-DOS.
There were indeed technical issues. Despite MS's attempts to make them even
more difficult. The fact that technical issues existed at all is evidence
to suggest that MS had a right to warn people about DR-DOS. Can you blame
them for wanting to take full advantage of it?
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 04:24:36 -0500
Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > David Steinberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8fae5b$hv1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > 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?
> >
> > I could really care less. The point of the matter is that no such
message
> > occured in the retail product.
>
> It did occur in the public BETA of windows3.1 and windows 3.1 is a a
> retail product.
You're arguing that a beta is a retail product?
> The message existed but was switched off in the GA version of
> Windows3.1.
If no message is ever displayed in the retail version, the the message does
not exist regardless of the existance of code. What matters is what the
user can see.
------------------------------
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: Wed, 10 May 2000 05:18:56 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> If no message is ever displayed in the retail version, the the message does
> not exist regardless of the existance of code. What matters is what the
> user can see.
Tens of thousands of users had the beta with the activated code.
-Peter
------------------------------
From: bob@nospam
Crossposted-To: comp.windows.x.kde,tw.bbs.comp.linux
Subject: Re: KDE is better than Gnome
Date: 10 May 2000 01:32:37 -0700
In article <Ww3S4.869$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "none2" says...
>
>one thing i hate about KDE is that
> (a) it looks likes windows
> (b) gnome doesnt
>
>even KDE2, is going down the path of intregated www browser in file
>manager tool,too all those KDE users who want Windows type interface, how
>about.. run windows?
becuase Linux is more stable.
btw, windows interface has 90% of world PC users. Would you complain
if tommorrow 90% of world PC users used Linux?
If you do not like KDE, do not use it. With linux you get a
choice, with windows you do not.
>I Installed linux to get away from windows, not to
>see another wannbe windows interface.
fine, then do not start KDE. it is that simple.
>KDE is a toy. QT sucks as a widget
>looks bland, and licensing issues make it undesirable to use.
>
Have not used QT. But I just read that Borland will use it
to build Kylix interface with it. If it is a toy widget, why
did Borland choose it?
btw, I happend to also like Gnome widgest more, I think they
look nicer. But if KDE will make linux used more and more,
all the power to KDE. Let the best env. win, open free competition is
good and healthy. In the end, we the users will have more choices.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 04:29:57 -0500
David Steinberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8fan3l$nsj$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 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?
http://www.theregister.co.uk/991105-000023.html
Brad Silverberg emailed Allchin on 27 September 1991: "drdos has problems
running windows today, and I assume will have more problems in the future."
Allchin replied: "You should make sure it has problems in the future. :-)",
Clearly damage to the competition is not the only reason that could be
deduced if there were actual technical problems, which Silverberg says there
were in internal memos.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 04:31:42 -0500
WickedDyno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:amg39.REMOVE-THIS-
> OK... but why a "Chinese" wall?
It's a reference to the great wall of china, which was intended to stop the
barbarian hordes from getting into china, but also stopped the chinese from
getting out.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 04:43:53 -0500
Salvador Peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> > 3rd party vendors didn't start supporting OLE for quite some time after
it
> > was available.
>
> Correct. Because it was not even available to them for several (6+)
> months until after the release of Power Point.
No, the OLE API was available when with the WIndows 3.0 SDK. OLE 2 which
came out with Windows 3.1 was also in the 3.1 SDK. The problem was that OLE
was such a confusing API at the time that it was difficult to make fully
compliant apps until books like Brockschmidts came out.
> > Ahh.. so you are making assumptions. It never occured to you that Word
> > Perfect may actually have a bug in their program?
>
> There was no problem before the release of the new .dlls I believe that
> MS introduced a newer version with printer OEM's to force an
> incompatibility with WordPerfect to help further erode Corel's market
> share.
Occams razor would suggest that WordPerfect was relying on a bug in the
DLL's (probably through observed behavior) which was later fixed. This is a
common problem with updated DLL's. Developers often notice that a call to
some function does something that is undocumented. They then write code
that depends on that, and later when the undocumented side-effect is changed
things break.
> As for the rest, believe what you want. I've shown several examples of
> undocumented calls. It took me all of 5 minutes to come up with 3.
> Mawa has referenced others from his own experience, and I suspect that
> he's probably forgotten more about programming than you or I will ever
> know. The only real counter-example that you offered is a fairly
> useless help file written 4-5 years after icmp.dll was introduced.
How do you know when it was written? The document only mentions the last
time it was updated.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 04:46:24 -0500
John Poltorak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In <8fa7e0$490$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Christopher Smith"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >Since people run around chanting "show us Microsoft's innovation" but
> >neglect to also chant "show us $SOMEOTHERCOMPANY's innovation".
>
> Here's a couple for starters:-
>
> IBM inventors of the IBM PC
> IBM inventors of the Winchester disk drive
Invention and innovation are two different things.
Even so, the IBM PC was clearly an invention, but was it innovation? It
used almost entirely off the shelf components.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (M. Buchenrieder)
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 05:55:20 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas) writes:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy M. Buchenrieder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> It is a concept that will not allow ordinary users accessing certain
>> commands that need root priviledges, even when if they knew the root
>> password for to become "root" using "su" . This practically limits the
>> access for the "root" user to just the console.
>Actually it doesnt. It simply lends a finer granularity of root-access
>control.
Well, sort of. You do have to be a member of the "wheel" group
to be able to actually use the root-password - which usually means
that "root" must have added you to that group from the console first...
Michael
--
Michael Buchenrieder * [EMAIL PROTECTED] * http://www.muc.de/~mibu
Lumber Cartel Unit #456 (TINLC) & Official Netscum
Note: If you want me to send you email, don't munge your address.
------------------------------
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: Wed, 10 May 2000 04:50:22 -0500
<jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)> wrote in message
news:L9BY9tzSDwrQ-pn2-d9UNCCpPQ8ZT@localhost...
> I have a Windows copy, a DR-DOS copy and a patch disk. What more
> evidence do you want? Engraved stone tables?
What evidence I want is documentation by objective sources to back up your
claim that the retail version of Windows 3.1 wouldn't work with DR-DOS.
> Here is a list of most of the files the patch disk replaced.
>
> DISPLAY SYS 4752 27/03/92 6:00
...
> Some of them have to do with memory management, but just about
> anything is in that list, so your claim about bugs in DR-DOS is to be
> taken for what it's worth.
Probably fixed other bugs as well.
> Please also note the copy date of the files, which should assist the
> case of my copy of Windows 3.1 not being a beta (any betas still
> around in retail in '92 would have meant serious trouble for
> Microsoft's sales figures)
Windows 3.1 was released in April of 92 IIRC, your files are dated from
March. How would it have meant trouble for anything?
> > There is no written evidence which supports this. Can you provide some
> > links?
> >
> How do I provide links to a "so I was told" source? The person who
> gave me the patch worked at Siemens Belgium at the time; he was
> heavily involved in both DR-DOS, OS/2 and UNIX; he knows more than I
> do; I repeat what he told me. Remember that all this happened in the
> days when there was not yet a "big Bad Microsoft" and Windows was just
> another program you could run on top of your operating system (these
> days of course it has become a program you _have_ to run on top of
> your operating system).
So, you have no proof that what you claim is true then.
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux will remain immune
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 10:51:50 +0100
C wrote:
>
> "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.
Have all the versions of sendmail that have been exploied in the past
been open source versions?
If thay haven't, then you're argument is meaningless.
Besides, since it is open source, problems are rapidly fixed. Has this
happened to outlook?
Anyway, the old problems in sendmail have been plugged, but the ones in
outlook haven't.
--
Did you know that the reason that windows steam up in cold weather is
because
of all the fish in the atmosphere?
-The Hackenthorpe Book Of Lies
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 05:51:14 -0400
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> 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.
It should be coded so that it does. If it isn't now, then it is wrong.
If the e-mail client can not tell the difference between a script and
harmless data, it has no business being used for e-mail.
--
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: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 05:53:10 -0400
"Joseph T. Adams" wrote:
>
> 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.
I agree, but, MS thinks running "scripts" and executables from e-mail is
important. The mind boggles.
--
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: 10 May 2000 09:21:20 GMT
In article <8f398g$cd$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Bart Oldeman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Apparently it didn't. Else the love bug couldn't have spread itself so
>> quickly. I mean, many users get so accustumed to pop-up boxes that they
>> just click them away, without consideration of what's in there. Forcing
>> them to use the keyboard in this way blocks this kind of behaviour.
>
> And if this had been happening on *nix systems with an attached script and
> an email telling people to save it, set it +x and then run it, the exact
> same stupid people would have fallen victim.
No, since the majority of stupids would have found making the file
executable to be beyond them, and a fair number of the rest would have
twigged that something was Not Quite Right. And if nothing else, the
payload would have mostly been less damaging and the net-traffic peak
broader. Unix platforms might not be immune, but an infection would
be far less severe.
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- I may seem more arrogant, but I think that's just because you didn't
realize how arrogant I was before. :^)
-- Jeffrey Hobbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: 10 May 2000 09:46:37 GMT
In article <8fahrg$d1l$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Joseph T. Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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.
It is much better to execute a script inside a sandbox where all
unsafe operations are simply not supported (or at least not supported
in dangerous combinations. This is an interesting topic...)
> 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.
Your solution isn't very good (dumb user saves to a file and then
double-clicks to get the original problem back again) and a much finer
scheme is to tag each file with a "safety bit" and files which come in
from potentially untrusted sources get marked as unsafe and can only
ever be viewed/executed in a restricted environment. Determining what
is safe and what is unsafe is a good question. I'd be personally
tempted to go for the paranoia setting...
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- I may seem more arrogant, but I think that's just because you didn't
realize how arrogant I was before. :^)
-- Jeffrey Hobbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 06:03:10 -0400
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> 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.
Wrong, the application must take the responsibility to know what data
types are executable content. If the e-mail client can not determine if
an object is safe to open, it has no business opening it. That is the
nature of a properly written e-mail program. Anything less if
irresponsible.
>
> The email program doesn't know anything about the content.
It should, if it does not, it is poorly written.
>
> > > 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.
This is an unlikely scenario. Changing associations is usually done by
installers. If *.jpeg" is set to the scripting host, the machine is
probably infected and not working.
>
> > > 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?
The e-mail program opens the gif file with "psp" or some registered
program, and the program pops up a dialog box indicating that it can
not read the file. What else?
--
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Poltorak)
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 10:06:34 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Poltorak)
In <ce2S4.334$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>John Poltorak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> I keep hearing about these marvellous innovations which Microsoft
>> make, but I am, in all honesty, completely baffled as to what is
>> being alluded to...
>>
>> Did Microsoft invent computers?
>
>You're confusing the word invention with the word innovation. They are not
>the same thing.
Care to enlightenment me about the nuances between the two, if you can?
>> However I'd like to hear what innovative technology a Microsoft proponent
>> thinks that Microsoft have introduced to the world.
>
>This has been argued many times. Hit deja.com for examples.
Tried.
Found none.
--
John
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
