Linux-Advocacy Digest #466, Volume #26 Thu, 11 May 00 21:13:08 EDT
Contents:
Re: Here is the solution (Alan Baker)
Re: Here is the solution ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Here is the solution (Peter Ammon)
Re: How to properly process e-mail ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Here is the solution ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Here is the solution ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: M$ wants to censor Slashdot - ISPs Beware! ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Not so fast... ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Browsers and e-mail (Christopher Browne)
Re: What have you done? (Christopher Browne)
Re: German Govt says Microsoft a security risk (Christopher Browne)
Re: Here is the solution ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Not so fast... ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Ease of Upgrading, was, Re: X Windows must DIE!!! (Lance Fallin)
Re: Here is the solution ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Not so fast... (Jeff Szarka)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Alan Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Here is the solution
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 17:15:13 -0700
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>
>>
>> "There's a needle somewhere in that haystack, go find it".
>
>Why has nobody responded to both of my examples? RegisterServiceProcess
>and WNetEnumCachedPasswords are two undocumented APIs. I found them at
>http://www.people.unt.edu/~das0015/winapiundoc.html
>
>-Peter
Or how about this site:
< http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/4942/index.html>
Where the author has this list:
"AddMRUData
AddMRUString
Alloc
CloseUserBrowser
CreateMRUList
CWM_GETISHELLBROWSER
CWM_GETPATH
CWM_SELECTITEM
CWM_SELECTITEMSTR
CWM_SETPATH
CWM_STATECHANGE
CWM_TESTPATH
DelMRUString
DPA_Clone
DPA_Create
DPA_CreateEx
DPA_DeleteAllPtrs
DPA_DeletePtr
DPA_Destroy
DPA_GetPtr
DPA_GetPtrIndex
DPA_Grow
DPA_InsertPtr
DPA_Search
DPA_SetPtr
DPA_Sort
DSA_Create
DSA_DeleteAllItems
DSA_DeleteItem
DSA_Destroy
DSA_GetItem
DSA_GetItemPtr
DSA_InsertItem
DSA_SetItem
EnumMRUList
EnumUserBrowserSelection
ExitWindowsDialog
FileIconInit
FileMenu_AbortInitMenu
FileMenu_AddFilesForPidl
FileMenu_AppendFilesForPidl
FileMenu_AppendItem
FileMenu_Create
FileMenu_DeleteAllItems
FileMenu_DeleteItemByCmd
FileMenu_DeleteItemByIndex
FileMenu_DeleteMenuItemByFirstID
FileMenu_DeleteSeparator
FileMenu_Destroy
FileMenu_DrawItem
FileMenu_EnableItemByCmd
FileMenu_FindSubMenuByPidl
FileMenu_GetItemExtent
FileMenu_GetLastSelectedItemPidls
FileMenu_HandleMenuChar
FileMenu_InitMenuPopup
FileMenu_InsertUsingPidl
FileMenu_Invalidate
FileMenu_MeasureItem
FileMenu_ReplaceUsingPidl
FileMenu_TrackPopupMenuEx
FindMRUData
FindMRUString
Free
FreeMRUList
GetFileNameFromBrowse
GetSize
ILAppendID
ILClone
ILCloneFirst
ILCombine
ILCreateFromPath
ILFindChild
ILFindLastID
ILFree
ILGetDisplayName
ILGetNext
ILGetSize ILGlobalClone
ILGlobalFree
ILIsEqual
ILIsParent
ILLoadFromStream
ILRemoveLastID
ILSaveToStream
OleStrToStrN
OpenUserBrowser
PathAddBackslash
PathAppend
PathBuildRoot
PathCleanupSpec
PathCombine
PathFileExists
PathFindExtension
PathFindFileName
PathFindOnPath
PathGetArgs
PathGetDriveNumber
PathGetExtension
PathGetShortPath
PathIsDirectory
PathIsExe
PathIsRelative
PathIsRoot
PathIsSameRoot
PathIsUNC
PathMakeUniqueName
PathMatchSpec
PathParseIconLocation
PathProcessCommand
PathQualify
PathQuoteSpaces
PathRemoveArgs
PathRemoveBlanks
PathRemoveExtension
PathRemoveFileSpec
PathResolve
PathSetDlgItemPath
PathStripPath
PathStripToRoot
PathUnquoteSpaces
PathYetAnotherMakeUniqueName
PickIconDlg
ReadCabinetState
ReAlloc
RestartDialog
RunFileDlg
SHAlloc
SHAllocShared
SHChangeNotification_Lock
SHChangeNotification_Unlock
SHChangeNotifyDeregister
SHChangeNotifyRegister
SHCreateShellFolderViewEx
Shell_GetCachedImageIndex
Shell_GetImageLists
Shell_MergeMenus
SHFindComputer
SHFindFiles
SHFree
SHFreeShared
SHGetSetSettings
SHILCreateFromPath
SHLockShared
SHObjectProperties
SHRestricted
SHShellFolderView_Message
SHSimpleIDListFromPath
SHUnlockShared
SHWaitForFileToOpen
SHWaitOp_Operate
SignalFileOpen
StrRetToStrN
StrToOleStrN
WriteCabinetState"
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall to that
wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you sit in the
bottom of that cupboard."
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Here is the solution
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 19:24:34 -0500
Peter Ammon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> >
> > "There's a needle somewhere in that haystack, go find it".
>
> Why has nobody responded to both of my examples? RegisterServiceProcess
> and WNetEnumCachedPasswords are two undocumented APIs. I found them at
http://www.people.unt.edu/~das0015/winapiundoc.html
I answered this already in another post.
RegisterServiceProcess is a documented API which can be found at:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?URL=/library/psdk/win95/95func
_3t0z.htm
WNetEnumCachedPasswords is undocumented, but it's not intended to be used by
normal applications. It's purpose is to be there for MAPI, which any
application can take advantage of. Do you have any proof of any MS
applications that use this API?
------------------------------
From: Peter Ammon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Here is the solution
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 20:21:08 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> Peter Ammon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >
> > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > "There's a needle somewhere in that haystack, go find it".
> >
> > Why has nobody responded to both of my examples? RegisterServiceProcess
> > and WNetEnumCachedPasswords are two undocumented APIs. I found them at
> http://www.people.unt.edu/~das0015/winapiundoc.html
>
> I answered this already in another post.
Which I saw a few minutes after I posted mine :-)
>
> RegisterServiceProcess is a documented API which can be found at:
>
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?URL=/library/psdk/win95/95func
> _3t0z.htm
>
> WNetEnumCachedPasswords is undocumented, but it's not intended to be used by
> normal applications. It's purpose is to be there for MAPI, which any
> application can take advantage of. Do you have any proof of any MS
> applications that use this API?
Not at all. I know very little about Windows programming, so all I can
do is repeat what web links tell me.
Thanks for clearing these up.
-Peter
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How to properly process e-mail
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 19:30:12 -0500
JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Thu, 11 May 2000 18:16:16 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >Rob S. Wolfram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Let's clarify what I mean with "auto-execute". I mean that the
> >> application you're using (the mailreader) will spawn the executable
> >> content by itself, bypassing the shell in the process. I don't give a
> >> flying hoot if warnings of potential danger are issued, it still
> >> executes the content by itself. That's not FUD, that's a fact.
> >
> >No, it's not. The email program launches the attachment by sending it to
> >the shell. It calls the exact same API that get's called when you double
> >click a document file in explorer. The shell is what determines what
> >application to launch when the attachment is opened, not the email
program.
>
> It doesn't matter where you pass the buck to. The fact remains
> that someone is assleep at the wheel while proven dangerous
> programs are being bandied about.
Try sticking to the thread. Rob claimed that the mailer was insecure
because it bypassed the shell. I state specifically that it doesn't bypass
the shell, therefore the claim is wrong. Changing the claim doesn't make
the claim any less wrong.
> >Depends on what you mean by common. Netscape is certainly common and it
> >does, so is Sun's email client.
>
> Name one Unix that doesn't come with uudecode and procmail or
> their equivalents? Automated processing of email is considered
> mundane in Unix as are format converters.
>
> You don't even need a mail client with eye candy to have fully
> access to mime attachments in Unix. You don't even need a user
> mail client at all actually.
That doesn't change the fact that two common mail clients allow the
execution of email content.
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Here is the solution
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 00:26:06 GMT
"josco" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Thu, 11 May 2000, Todd wrote:
[snip]
> > So in other words, you can't provide a secret API call that you couldn't
do
> > with the normal SDK.
>
> I haven't found a good reason to bother.
>
> Your test is irrelevant - it doesn't include efficiency.
You could try to show that the published API is significantly
less efficient than the 'secret' ones.
> The existance
> and use of undocumented APIs is proof enough MS cheated. Arguing they had
> no purposes presupposes you know how MS competitors were supposed to build
> software. The crime is the lack of full access to the OS.
Lack of full access to the OS is a *good* thing; it lets MS make
improvements
to it. It's why you can have software that runs on Windows 95 *and* 98,
and Windows NT and 2000.
That is what APIs are all about.
Microsoft did let its application developers use internal calls, but
this was a mistake, and it was bad for Microsoft, because it left
them with a compatibility problem when they wanted to implement
Windows 95. They gained no known benefits from doing this.
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Here is the solution
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 00:26:07 GMT
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:gIsS4.497$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8fd9su$25gv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[snip]
> > Can you write a backup domain controller capable of syncing
> > contents with an NT domain controller? Or a replacement
> > primary controller that can sync to a Microsoft backup
> > controller?
>
> That's a protocol, not an API.
Actually, it *is* an API.
It's just that in Unix it would be a protocol,
so Unix folks keep looking for protocol docs and not
finding them. That is not how Windows works; but it *is*
possible to have non-Microsoft security. You just have
to do it in a different way.
The thing you want is called a "Security Service Provided";
it is a DLL that knows how to do authentication and
related tasks. MSDN describes these in detail; they
are rather non-trivial. But you can write your own and
install them, and Windows will use yours right alongside
Microsoft's.
This is typical of how Windows works. You don't get to tap into
the internal implementation of NTLM security; you do get
to write your own and plug it in so Windows seemlessly
uses it.
One can put a positive spin on this. MS isn't forcing you to use
their networking standards, even if you use Windows. You
can write your own; either to interoperate with a system
MS doesn't support, or to come up with something new.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: M$ wants to censor Slashdot - ISPs Beware!
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 19:37:57 -0500
billy ball <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Thu, 11 May 2000 22:03:21 GMT, scumbucket <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >This is the full spec:
>
> [M$ "copyrighted" info snipped]
>
> what's really sad is that:
>
> 1) M$ uses perverse, insipid legal verbiage
You mean like the GPL.
> 2) people and companies are initimated by M$ tactics
You mean like the GPL. Every company i've worked for has banned useage of
code found on the internet due to the GPL's hardline tactics of forcing any
developer that includes GPL'd code to publish all of their code. They
simply don't want to take the chance.
> 3) M$ adopts/steals Kerberos, then corrupts the protocol,
> violates MIT's BSD-style license, then adds its own
> licensing stipulation to the release of specifications
> in order to quash use of the protocol on other platforms,
> and prohibit cross-platform compatibility, and then cites
> DCMA to quash criticism...
BSD-style liscening is no liscensing. You can do with it as you please.
You aren't even required to give credit anymore.
Also, Microsoft worked closely with the Kerberos standards committee, and
MS's implementation is entirely standards compliant. Nothing was "stolen".
> M$ is going to get every evil action back - in spades...
Probably, but you haven't named any.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Not so fast...
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 19:41:27 -0500
Matthias Warkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> It was the Thu, 11 May 2000 12:37:05 GMT...
> ...and Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 1) Infect source code, redistribute.
>
> This has been tried with the Linux kernel. The Trojan was found in
> less than 24 hours as far as I know.
And how long was it before ILOVEYOU was found? Minutes.
Still, ILOVEYOU was much more obvious. How many people downloaded that
kernel in those 24 hours? How many people didn't hear about the infection?
How many people are STILL using the infected kernel?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Browsers and e-mail
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 00:35:29 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Rolf Rander Naess would say:
>[ Christopher Browne, 10 May 2000 23:41 ]
>> --
>> Real Programmers are surprised when the odometers in their cars don't
>> turn from 99999 to A0000.
>
>Actually, I would expect it to be 9999A. :-)
You're not supposed to point that out! :-)
--
To err is human, to moo bovine.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Subject: Re: What have you done?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 00:35:30 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Steve Harvey would say:
>In article <RsmS4.15586$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Christopher
>Browne wrote:
>>There does indeed need to be a file transfer service that doesn't
>>transfer passwords in clear text; layering FTP atop SSH is a quite
>>appropriate way to cope with this.
>
>There's also a secure copy tool - scp - that is part of ssh, and
>serves this purpose very nicely.
Unfortunately, it needs to become ubiquitous.
Which requires that it be _free enough_ to become ubiquitous. Which
it isn't, yet...
<http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-devel-9810/msg00130.html>
--
To err is human, to moo bovine.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: German Govt says Microsoft a security risk
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 00:35:31 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when John Hasler would say:
>mlw writes:
>> The german people are no more to blame for there actions than the
>> countless other peoples and nations which have had similar atrocities.
>
>And no less.
>
>> I have no right telling anyone what they should believe.
>
>But German politicians have the right to tell their citizens that they
>should not believe in Scientology?
They appear to regard it as a "cult" rather than as an ordinary
religion. I would tend to agree with that regard.
>> Why should I be bombarded by religious zealots telling me I should
>> believe in some hokey 2000 year old religion about some guy who got
>> nailed to a dead tree?
>
>If you live in Germany (or many other nations), because the politicians who
>decide who is permitted to do such bombarding are followers of that
>religion.
>
>> Human beings are very irrational in their actions when it comes to
>> pleasing a deity through the commands of a religion. True believer's of
>> any religion are, by very definition, irrational.
>
>And therefor governments, consisting as they do of human beings, must not
>be allowed to regulate religion.
Ah, but if they cannot have _any_ regulations on religion or religious
activity, this means that those that would wish to do nefarious things
need only establish themselves as a religion, and establish the
nefarious activities as religious activities.
There's something of a "meta-religion" question here.
Scientology has some activities (running businesses, running
conferences, providing "business technologies") that appear _not_ to
be religious matters.
Whilst religious organizations traditionally encourage the widespread
dissemenation of their "scriptures," whether that be the Koran, the
Christian Bible, Hindu scriptures, or such, Scientology are quite
taken <http://www.scientology.org/csi.htm> with copyright, and are
noted for _vigorously_ pursuing anyone that distributes material
outside their control.
If you regard religious activities as being inherently irrational, and
thereby a "bad thing," then the _appropriate_ direction that comes
from that regard should be to forbid them altogether. Which certainly
doesn't lead to permissiveness towards the Scientologists...
--
"Bother," said Pooh, "Eeyore, ready two photon torpedoes and lock
phasers on the Heffalump, Piglet, meet me in transporter room three"
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Here is the solution
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 00:37:54 GMT
"Leslie Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8fepfn$7lq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <gIsS4.497$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> >That's a protocol, not an API.
>
> I have the feeling that you are going to reply that anything that
> isn't documented isn't an API, but let's take the same issue
> from the other direction where it clearly is an API. How do
> I, on a client, exchange a password in the NT encrypted mode
> using a protocol of my own and a server of my own, and then
> make the client consider itself authenticated in the domain?
That's the spirit: look at the problem to solve, rather
than demanding a specific solution.
Window's solution is the "security support provider" API,
documented here:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/psdk/secspi/portalsspi_1545.htm
(In a previous post I called it the security *service* provider,
which is wrong and won't get you the meat of the thing)
You write an SSP, and it talks to your domain controller
however you want to. An SSP is a DLL that supports
a particular entry point (which returns a pointer to a table
of functions.. icky) and also appears under a particular
key in the registry.
By doing this, you can implement protocols that do not have
the weaknesses of the NTLM. This is how MS provides
support for Kerberos in Windows 2000, ferinstance.
This is actually very nice. If you don't like W2K's Kerberos
support, you can provide you own that is more friendly to
your own Kerberos servers.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Not so fast...
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 19:48:37 -0500
The Ghost In The Machine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Debatable. I think most Linux users recognize that the Linux
> system is highly resistant to virii, but not totally immune.
Then explain the thread titled "Linux will continue to be immune"
> True, and whoever did it was apparently fairly clever.
> This doesn't mean of course that Microsoft doesn't have back
> doors.
Then how come Microsofts web site has never been compromised?
> >6) User zealotry
> >A virus could spread simply because everyone running Linux thinks
> >they're safe. I'm sure many don't give a second thought about the
> >possibility of a virus outbreak. How many people blindly trust RPM's
> >to be safe? Lots.
>
> How many people blindly trust Outlook Express, VB Scripting Host,
> or Microsoft Windows to be safe?
Nobody ;)
Why do you think virus scanners are so popular?
> >7) Pre-emptive strikes against security problems in open source
> >software
> >Why report the bug or fix it when you can exploit it first?
>
> One advantage of O.S. is that, once reported, things tend to be
> fixed rather quickly. Consider the teardrop scenario, for instance.
Of course that assumes that everyone is staying up to date.
> >Something to think about before everyone climbs up into their ivory
> >towers and pretends it can't happen here.
>
> I'll agree with that sentiment. Just remember, Windows users are
> down in the trenches, too.... :-)
I don't think anyone is denying that.
------------------------------
From: Lance Fallin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x
Subject: Ease of Upgrading, was, Re: X Windows must DIE!!!
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 18:45:37 -0600
I have to say...
as a newbie Linux user (just on my pc at home) (just using it for anything that I used
WinDos
for)...
My Story.....
1995 I came out of the cave and started to use computers at home... bought an old
386...got rid
of it in a few weeks ...
1995 a few weeks later (some time during the summer) got a brand new 486 at wal-mart
(although it
was on sale because it was already obsolete)
1995 (winter time) paid the local BBS to come out and install their software to allow
me to go on
the internet...this was after a brief trial stint with AOL (some call it AO-Hell)...
learned about IRC #Italy was the first channel I chatted on and I used mIRC and pIRCh
I have had the nick "arid1" since that time and up to and including the present.
1996 to 1998 windows user and upgraded my old 486 all kinds of ways....
didn't wanna buy a new puter...hehehe...but I should have....
Used and tried experimental beta software I.E. the "opera browser" (for WinDos)
I tried everything to keep my "poor mans" computer going....I tried different kinds of
software
to do the same things...I added more memory...even got an over-drive chip at one
point....
1998 finally I got sick of my computer and WinDos
I was ready to try anything..... hehehe I traded it for an ANCIENT Mac IIsi...hehehe
which was a mistake in a way...but I at least got to experiment with mac...I was even
thinking
about getting a new Amiga (even if I had to order it special from Germany????)...but
the cost
...man...the cost...
I couldn't do it....
got rid of the mac....it was just too old.
1999 I did without a computer for most of the year (that suk'd big time)
end of 1999 I decided to buy a used PC ... this one that I am using now...
I bought a "Equus" Pentium 90 took out the old 1.whatever hd and installed a 8.4 hd
(yes...miraculously I did it myself) I still have the 32 megs of ram that came with
it...but I am
going to double that soon...
I bought win98 for it originally.... and was happy...for a while.... but...blue screen
city and
hanging and ...I don't know...different things...oh yeah...and let's not forget
"win-nuking" on
irc...I was being knocked off line nightly...man...how is a single poor
"semi-quasi-nerd"
supposed to have a love/social life???? huh???
Finally...I called in the troops...made one well placed call to my more Tech youngest
Brother
back east and said...yo...talk to me...Linux....speak to me about it.... hehehe
He suggested RedHat (hey I saw that "BugHat" comment hehehe)....
Man.... I tried Redhat and then I tried Caldera and then Redhat and I have Storm,
Mandrake and
SuSe on CD's laying around here somewhere...but I always seem to go back to er-hem
"BugHat"
hehehe
All I can say is.... after the initial learning curve (which I am still trying to
learn more
commands to use at the command line daily) Linux ....well...for me anyway.... Linux
ROCKS!!!!
No crashes.... no being win-nuked daily on irc...LOTS of freebie programs..... and
what the
heck....I like Linux because it gives me that old sense of "newness" again.... the
adventure.... the learning... the finding something "new" about the OS everyday... of
course...I'm a bit of a "Betazoid" so maybe that's a huge part of it for me... but I
really like
Linux enough that I use the Linux "side" of my hard drive well over 90% of the time...
and
really...I'm as newbie about Linux as anyone...I'm not afraid to crash and burn...and
I'm not
afraid to learn... But is any OS perfect??? not one OS is perfect...
But Linux suits me fine (I'll still keep WinDos just because I have a few programs on
it that I
like and well...I just don't wanna let go yet...maybe someday I will???)...
Ok so the point is....after installing a few distros and a few versions of those
distros....uhm
Redhat and Caldera both are really ...I mean REALLY easy...and the upgrade??? just go
for it as
if a new install...but at some point it asks you... something about upgrade or new
install???
just choose the "upgrade" option and you don't lose anything you had before (I know
because I
did exactly that) I mean...is that easy or is that easy?
and those are my experiences thus far
oh yeah... I like that there are different distros....I want to be able to CHOOSE and
let the
best distro for me get my time and/or money (usually a little of both).
in fact...WinDos would or could be better if it was open source... (at least I think
it would,
with more programmers working on the kernel??? it would have to be...do ya think???)
> >Another thing, what can make Linux even more confusing to the average home user??
>SIX
> >DIFFERENT LINUX's!!!! Whats up with all the distributions?? That to me is
>ridiculous and
>
> Just pick one and use it.
>
> That's what 'poor ignorant' consumers do for anything else.
>
> >will soley keep Linux out of the running for a decent market share in the OS
>industry. Way
> >too confusing!
> >
> >Also, I am deathly afraid of upgrading my RedHat 6.0 to 6.2 for fear of losing much
> >information and for the time and effort that will have to go into it. I also
>
> ...sounds like a Win 3.1 to Win 95 install, or a Win 95 to Win98
> install. This would be a compelling criticism of Linux (if true)
> if you were comparing it to BeOS or MacOS.
>
> It's a feeble remark in comparison to WinDOS.
>
> do not know of
> >a way to backup the entire system. It is no problem backing up Windows. There are
>many
> >utilities writtten to do it. Are there any with Linux? Microsoft makes it as
>painless as
>
> Yeah, right. That was another thing that annoyed me about Windows.
>
> Wanna back up everything on Unix? Just copy the damn files somewhere.
> Buy a commercial utility if you can't handle tar or a cd burner.
>
> [deletia]
>
> Partition things right & backup /etc and you can just plain blow
> the OS away and reinstall it with little if any impact.
>
> --
>
> |||
> / | \
>
> Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Here is the solution
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 20:00:39 -0500
Alan Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Or how about this site:
>
> < http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/4942/index.html>
>
> Where the author has this list:
[large list of undocumented functions deleted]
Noone is arguing that there are not undocumented functions. What we're
arguing is that nobody can provide a list of undocumented functions that
current Microsoft applications take advantage of. Most (if not all) of
those API's are used by the OS itself rather than applications.
Undocumented API's exist for every OS, including Linux (if you consider the
man pages to be the documentation). Sure, you can read the source, and find
out the low level functions names and function signatures for stuff that's
not intended for application consumption, but it's really no different.
------------------------------
From: Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Not so fast...
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 00:54:31 GMT
On Thu, 11 May 2000 17:25:10 GMT, The Cat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
:I think you might want to check the spelling on that word :)
Yea.... that should be "facilitate"
Not sure how that slipped by. MS Word auto-correct maybe...?
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
