Linux-Advocacy Digest #546, Volume #26 Tue, 16 May 00 20:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Microsoft finally gets the idea... almost (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
Re: Desktop use, office apps (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Desktop use, office apps (JEDIDIAH)
RE: If you don't like Linux then just leave! ("Raul Valero")
Re: Linux lacks (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Here is the solution (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Erik Fuckingliar Strikes Again (tinman)
Re: Linux lacks ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: Things Linux can't do! ("Stephen S. Edwards II")
Re: Linux lacks ("Evan DiBiase")
Re: Here is the solution (josco)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (josco)
Re: Things Linux can't do! ("Stephen S. Edwards II")
Re: Here is the solution (josco)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft finally gets the idea... almost
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 22:49:07 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
> The have been quite a few threads about
> the proper action on executable
> content in email, as a result of the
> ILOVEYOU worm. What we (the *nix
> advocates) have been saying all along
> is that the Outlook's behaviour
> (launch executable content from the
> mail client) posed serious security
> risks, as proven by the impact of the
> ILOVEYOU worm. We also stated that
> this is nothing new, these risks have
> been warned for since rfc1341.
Actually, this has been a concern ever since the first
use of "shar" files back in the 1980s. Users were
encouraged to "cut here" and then run the remaining file
through a shell script which would then unpack uuencoded
compressed files, and then execute them.
This was not significantly different from the Morris Internet
Worm of 1987. Since that time, the use of automagically excuted
scripts has been strongly discouraged.
> Still Erik Funkenbusch felt the need to
> "relativate" (sorry, English is
> not my native tongue) the behaviour as:
> not being Windows specific and
Actually, Erik is right. The UNIX community had problems with
people downloading binary files that had what we now call viruses
in them, and executing them. In some cases, the shar script would
even remove all traces of itself.
The good news was that the damage was minimized by the fact that
even if symbolic links were used, the user only had access to his
own files. As a result, a shar script that unpacked an "rm -rf"
command would only delete the user's filesystem as opposed to
every file system.
A particularly nasty one was to set up routing loops using aliases.
The point was that if you did get a malicious gift, you could
unwrap it manually, identify the bomb, and in many cases at least
have the account revoked.
> not being unnatural (<E3HS4.610$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) and
> Christopher Smith downright justifies this behaviour
> (<8fi72b$u2e$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>).
>
> Still, it seems that Microsoft has
> finally seen the light on this one.
> They are patching Outlook to not launch
> executable content anymore
It's about time! Microsoft has been bitten by three viruses
that were based on the simple fact that Outlook would open
attachments and execute the interpreter or executablee without
providing insight to the content.
It really doesn't go far enough. Microsoft also needs to disable
VBS and ActiveX in IE as well.
> (see
http://www.officeupdate.microsoft.com/2000/articles/out2ksecarticle.htm
).
> I think this is a wonderful decision and I sincerely hope that other
> mail clients will soon follow (Pegasus, Eudora etc). The pity is that
> they are overdoing it a lot. Not only will you be prevented to launch
a
> dangerous attachment, you are completely rejected access to it. You
> don't have to be a psychology guru to understand that this will be
> considered a major hindrance and thus not be installed by many
Outlook
> users. This might well mean that we get back to square 1.
The problem with e-mail attachements is that e-mail can be faked.
By forcing a would-be virus circulator to provide a link to the
questionable content, and to provide it in a format that can be
unwrapped using ZIP, as opposed to what appears to be self-extracting
zip (exe) files, you have a means for tracing the content back
to a verifiable source. e-mail is so prone to aliasing, redirection,
and spoofing, that it should be considered to be from "anonymous
hacker".
When you link back to the web site, you now have credit card
information (used to pay for the site), common-use e-mail, and
often additional information about the origin such as related
interests. At very minimum, you have the IP address of the
site that holds the content.
> I think people should be able to /view/ executable
> content (as far as it is viewable)
bad idea. Better to detach it to a file, examine it with a
debugger or binary file examiner, or the appropriate text editor,
than to hap-hazardly begin executing a script that may do anything
from ship your password to your competitors all the way to
reformatting your hard drive.
> from the mail client, but not launch it from there.
Therin lies the rub. One of the advantages to object oriented
systems is that the reader is associated to the content. But
since the nature of a viewer is to cause a file to be displayed,
one must assume that a script file will be displayed by executing
the script.
If you can detach the file, you can then drag it into notepad,
where you can decide if this is even safe to touch.
In most cases, when you get a box that ticks or beeps, it's just
a cute little clock. But all it takes is one bomb, and it's over.
> They should also be able to save the attachment
> and still lanch it from a shell.
maybe by adding a warning message as you are about to detach
the file - you can add the "step ladder warnings" - "THIS FILE
MAY CONTAIN CONTENT THAT COULD DAMAGE YOUR COMPUTER AND THE COMPUTERS
OF MANY OTHERS IN YOUR ORGANIZATION, PLEASE REVIEW THE SOURCE CODE
CAREFULLY BEFORE EXECUTING, EVEN THEN, THE USER EXECUTES THIS FILE
AT THEIR OWN RISK.
The fact is that there is a similar warning written into the
Microsoft End User License Agreement (EULA), which Microsoft
uses to protect itself from liability related to such errors.
In this case, ILOVEYOU caused nearly $10 billion in damages and
could have been prevented or damages could have been mitigated.
Microsoft gave users a false sense of security, indicating that
Melissa and ExploreZip, or similar viruses could not happen again.
ILOVEYOU was better social engineering, and better at doing DEEP
address book searches, but the basic premise was very similar
to the previous two viruses. Thank goodness that the user
didn't combine ILOVEYOU with BUBBLEBOY (spreads when you open
the main message).
> Another possibility would be to make it launchable within a
> sandbox, but that poses quite a few challenges IMO.
The Java Sandbox is an interesting concept. Even today, however,
there is resistance to allowing applets to access systems that
might breach the sandbox. There's no such thing as a "Trusted"
Applet, especially in e-mail attachments.
> I do not think that the *nix system
> should be copied per se, but it has
> been a proven system up to now. Use
> a systemwide "mailcap" with very
> sensible defaults, and let the user
> expand this with his own .mailcap.
> This way, only users who know what they do
> will be able to lauch email
> content, and I think maybe 1 out of 1000 will choose to do so.
Unfortunately, users who know what they are doing
fall into two catagoories:
Those who really know what they are doing and wouldn't assume
the risks and responsibilities of doing the open.
Those who think they know what they are doing, but are stupid
enough to permit themselves to open executables and scripts
without examining the source code.
Usually, the folks in the latter catagory are also the people
who will try and download a "Free Copy of MS-Office" from Pakistan
and wonder why his system is acting flakey.
> My EUR 0.02
>
> Cheers,
> Rob
> --
> Rob S. Wolfram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PGP 0x07606049 GPG
0xD61A655D
--
Rex Ballard - Open Source Advocate, Internet
I/T Architect, MIS Director
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 60 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 1%/week!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Desktop use, office apps
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 23:02:53 GMT
On Tue, 16 May 2000 22:45:36 GMT, Raul Valero <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>K6-2/350MHz, 256MB SDRAM PC-100, UDMA66 8GB HD, kernel 2.2.15 with VIA Bus
>Master
>XFree86 4.0, any window manager or desktop environment (often iceWMm,
>Enlightenment or KDE)
>
>The whole Staroffice and an open document under the word processor takes
>less than 1 minute by far.
My K6-3/400 w/ 128M & UDMA 20G Deskstar is the same way. However,
the same version of StarOffice under Win32 and a mere 64 loads
slowly AND bogs the system down in the process.
SO5 a memory hog. Whodathunkit? '-)
--
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] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Desktop use, office apps
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 23:06:34 GMT
On 16 May 2000 17:43:43 -0500, Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <8fsfbf$58s$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>R. Christopher Harshman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>> the same shared library X widget set for the window manager,
>>> browser, or just spend the money we save on software on
>>> more RAM and faster drives (which pays off anyway because these
>>> speed up other things as well). What kind of throughput are you
>>
>>Spending more money also defeats one of the primary reasons we're using
>>Linux - cost. If I can wring suitable performance out of these
>>workstations, we'll deploy Linux across more than a hundred computers;
>>upgrading them all with RAM and faster drives will be excessive. (Isn't
>>this one of the key complaints against Windows 2000, and Microsoft
>>bloatware in general?)
>
>Yes, it is a complaint you hear, but I don't take it that seriously.
OTOH, there might be some middle ground in terms of extra
physical RAM expenditure where SO performance would be
acceptable and the cost would still be significantly less
than the strictly Win32 solution.
>If you want bare bones, you can always use the DOS WordPerfect 5.1.
>In fact I'd expect it to run nicely under dosemu. But, I
>remember when a 5 Meg hard drive cost $3,000 so I don't mind
>buying something reasonable today.
[deletia]
>>If we had enough
>>RAM to cache these huge apps I could probably just load (and quit) them
>>as a part of the boot sequence, but most of our workstations have 32MB,
>>so we're back to the cost issue.
>
>I think you would be happier with 128M long after you forgot about
>the cost. I'm surprised you like MS office on 32M. You must
>never run Netscape at the same time - or anything else.
Office '97 can be rather painful at times. Large documents are
also problematic (of course) on my 64M Win32 workstation regardless
of the enviroment.
[deletia]
Anyone ever try StarOffice over the wire on a LAN?
--
In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: "Raul Valero" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: If you don't like Linux then just leave!
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 23:05:16 GMT
> Actually, no, it is not. It is a Linux discussion group.
Well, that was the thing I intended to say.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: Linux lacks
Date: 16 May 2000 18:01:09 -0500
In article <UhkU4.193$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Raul Valero <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> It runs perfectly under VMware with Linux as host, any flavor of
>> windows as guest, and displaying even on a remote Xwindow. Some
>> people are also running it under WINE.
>
> To be honest, Windows 2000 and NT runs perfectly whole GNU/Linux
>systems, SCO, Solaris, FreeBSD, etc ... this is not a proof :-)
The claim was that you couldn't run word under Linux, so that
was a disproof. And you left out the part about displaying
in a remote Xwindow.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Here is the solution
Date: 16 May 2000 18:09:52 -0500
In article <YhkU4.69719$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Daniel Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Why does MS think it would be a bad idea to separate the apps division
>> from the OS if they don't think they need the unfair advantage?
>
>Money. Big huge pots of money.
>
>Office is one of MS's best cash cows.
The apps division won't disappear, and ownership isn't going to
be stolen away if they are turned into two different companies
with different management. The apps company would just have
to compete with others for information from the OS company
and make their own bundling deals in the future. But that's
not a problem, right?
>> What else do they have to lose by working openly with other
>> companies? If they claim that the OS has gained something from
>> suggestions from the apps group, why wouldn't it be even better
>> to let other apps developers have the same input?
>
>You suppose they don't? That they turn down ideas from other
>developers? For heavens sake, why?
Perhaps because if they use them they end up buying the company?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (tinman)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Erik Fuckingliar Strikes Again
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 19:15:49 -0400
In article <8frncl$71k$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K.
Fellows) wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> tinman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Of course, you're free to judge, but what I have in mind isn't simple name
> > calling--he needs a moniker with flare, something special. Simple name
> > calling won't cut it.
>
> I keep reading his name as "Bob Gerbil". Obviously I need more sleep.
>
*LOL* I _like_ that one....('
--
______
tinman
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux lacks
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 17:22:04 -0500
David Cueto wrote:
> Where is the GNU/Linux and open source supreme security ? Haven't been
> hacked as many open source sites as non open source ones ? Starting from
> rootshell and till apache site.
a) http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,36336,00.html
"If you're a Windows 2000 user, be warned: Your security software may not work
the way you think it does."
"This design choice has alarmed security experts, not least because so many
Microsoft products recently have had so many problems. The company spent the
last week acknowledging embarrassing security holes in its Hotmail service,
Internet Explorer browser, and Outlook mail client."
"This sounds like par for the course," said William Knowles, a consultant for
c4i Secure Solutions. "You're talking about an operating system that leaves all
the security holes wide open and makes the customer close them."
[OT aside:]
"Microsoft said that as of May 1, there had been 1.5 million Windows 2000
licenses sold."
What happened? I thought they sold 1.0 million in the first month? I gues
word got around, eh?
b) http://www.zdnet.com/sr/stories/news/0,4538,2570180,00.html
"Microsoft operating systems, especially NT, has more reported security bugs
over the last two years than any other operating system."
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Date: 16 May 2000 23:32:51 GMT
Perry Pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: On Tue, 16 May 2000 20:42:36 +0200, Paul 'Z' Ewande�
: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: >
: >Perry Pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a �crit dans le message :
: >[EMAIL PROTECTED]
: >
: ><SNIP> A lot of stuff </SNIP>
: >
: >> >Still expecting Charlie's documented evidence.
: >> >
: >>
: >> AFAIK, Charlie never claimed to have any evidence. It's his own
: >> personal experience, and you haven't proven him wrong.
: >
: >No. He said that WinNT/2k is a blue screening mess that can't handle a heavy
: >load. I don't recall him saying that it was his opinion or experience, he,
: >IIRC, passed it as a fact.
: Go back and read his posts. He said it was his experience.
Just because something is someone else's "experience" doesn't
automatically make it true. For example, in my experience, WindowsNT is a
very stable and reliable platform. So why isn't my experience true?
Because it doesn't agree with your experience? So, why should I believe
that your experience is true, since it doesn't agree with mine? Do you
see where I'm getting at?
What it boils down to, Perry, is that you cannot argue anecdotal evidence
as fact, because it can never be a fact. The only thing that can be a
fact is something which can be proven. I cannot prove that WindowsNT is
stable and reliable, just as neither you, nor Charlie can prove that it
isn't.
I think Paul's point is the same as mine. You cannot prove nor disprove
an _opinion_, and opinions are all that Charlie is offering. In other
words, what he's offering is useless blithering.
: >I said that some corporations disagree, and wether they have ties with
: >microsoft is irrelevant to me.
: Availability of server farms do *not* prove non-existance of BSOD's
: within the farm. Finiancial ties to Microsoft give these companies
: reason to put up with BSOD's. So IMHO, those sites prove nothing.
While I agree that there might be some influence regarding OS of choice
there, I still think there is no reason to believe that those machines are
BSODing all over the place either. Again, this material that Charlie is
presenting is entirely subjective. I think you agree with his experience,
and that's fine. But please don't regard his and your experiences _true_,
simply because they conincide. That doesn't make your experiences any
more true or false than mine.
Using anecdotal evidence, and opinionated statements is no way to prove
anything. The only thing it can be used for is to try to sway other
people's opinions.
--
.-----.
|[_] :| Stephen S. Edwards II | NetBSD: Free of hype and license.
| = :| "Artificial Intelligence -- The engineering of systems that
| | yield results such as, 'The answer is 6.7E23... I think.'"
|_..._| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount
------------------------------
From: "Evan DiBiase" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux lacks
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 19:37:46 -0400
"Leslie Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8fsaa6$2peo$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Evan DiBiase <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >It has nothing to do with video games. You said that it was impossible to
> >prove that there was something that could be done better on Windows than
> >Linux. I gave you an example. Running Microsoft Word could be another
> >example.
>
> It runs perfectly under VMware with Linux as host, any flavor of
> windows as guest, and displaying even on a remote Xwindow. Some
> people are also running it under WINE.
Oh, come on now. VMware is basically Windows on Linux, so you're using Word
with Windows, not Linux. Besides, you wouldn't be using it "better" -- it
would be slower, without a doubt.
At any rate, I was trying to show the stupidity of Charlie's assertion, not
to start a "Windows apps on Linux" flamefest :)
-Evan
------------------------------
From: josco <[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: Tue, 16 May 2000 16:38:25 -0700
On Wed, 17 May 2000, Todd wrote:
>
> Joseph wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>
> Again, most Win32 API functions have been around unchanged for years.
Again, NO ONE cares. MS even says they innovate by changing/adding to the
APIs so your comments are pointless and contradict MS and its detractors.
> Most
> commercial applications such as Office use only a very small subset of these
> calls. These very calls are in one of the most well put together SDK's
> available today -- free.
MS insists that without the Apps group develiping new APIs for windows
they would NOT have been unable to build Windows95/98 NT.
You're behind the PR spin: What we have here is a lag between a
significant change in MS's defense and the time an advocate clues into
MS's new defense.
> It wouldn't be hard to write a competitor to Office with today's version of
> the SDK. The question is, would you really want to compete with a
> standard -- and a refined one at that.
The question is what right does a monopoly have in excluding competitors?
The answer is NONE. All APIs must be published as they are designed and
implemented.
> >No one argues ISV competitors cannot make apps - the argument is MS has an
> >unfair advantage. Why argue an irrelevant point?
>
> I don't see the advantage *unless* the app. in questions is a app. that
> could *not* be developed without that particular API call.
How can you ignore the quality and cost of implementation in a commerical
application?
> If you don't agree, what *new* API calls are required for the particular
> app. in question? I'd really like to know.
A hidden API can be more efficient than those docuemnted allowing for the
SAME functionality but with better performance. How can you ignore the
quality and cost of implementation in a commerical application?
> >Who cares about the core API? Pay attention.
>
> Who cares? Every developer writing Win32 apps.?
They also care about electricity but we're talking about Hidden APIs not
CORE APIs or electricity.
> >MS is whining to the courts that they needed and continue to need to add
> new OS
> >APIs *specifically* for their Applications - they call it innovation.
>
> No, that's not what they are saying. They are saying that they should be
> able to add new features to the OS.
No. MS is talking about APIs their Apps group devleop that MS then adds to
the OS.
> That is what every other OS maker does.
Only MS is a monopoly so It wouldn't matter what others do even if you
were right (you're wrong).
> What, developing features that customers asked for and then making an
> interface for 3rd parties to extend?
Ironically, MS's cheating has destroyed a majority of the ISVs and scared
off a large fraction of new investments.
That us the sad thing for you and those who advocate for MS and Windows -
the market is really dead except for the work MS does which is always more
limited than what a free and open market can accomplish. That's why game
consoles have beaten PCs and why MS doesn't even talk about W2K but the MS
X-BOX. They recognize their PC technology is monopoly based and inferior
due to the lack of innovation and competition that would have forced MS to
build a better PC game system. The lazy monopoly ruined the PC game
platform so they are trying to fund the X-BOX with PC monopoly money.
------------------------------
From: josco <[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, 16 May 2000 16:43:08 -0700
On Tue, 16 May 2000, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> josco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On Tue, 16 May 2000, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > > Bob Hauck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >
> > > MS has denied the existance of a chinese wall since at *LEAST* December
> of
> > > 1991 when Mark Maples (MS's spokesman at the time) stated it didn't
> exist in
> > > InfoWorld. This was years before any DOJ negotiations.
> > >
> > > The Chinese Wall was talked about in the mid-80's, not in the 90's.
> >
> > Bummer dude because "The FEDS" began their MS anti-trust investigation in
> > 1989 - two full years before 1991.
>
> That was not the DOJ. That was the FTC.
Same laws, same evidence, same government.
------------------------------
From: "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Date: 16 May 2000 23:40:20 GMT
Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: "Stephen S. Edwards II" wrote:
: >
: > Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: >
: > : Evan DiBiase wrote:
: > : >
: > : > "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
: > : > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
: > : > > You haven't been alive very long.
: > : > >
: > : > > BTW, did I mention I actually started my computer career before you were
: > : > > born.
: > : >
: > : > You've got a pretty bad attitude. "I can't think of anything to say to you,
: > : > so I win because I've had more experience." Come on, this is the internet.
: > : > I'd expect more than that from you.
: > : >
: > : > I try to be very open-minded. If you'd like to ask me some questions about
: > : > my Linux experience, or why I'm using Windows 2000 now instead of Linux, I'd
: > : > be glad to talk with you. Maybe you can bring up some points that I haven't
: > : > thought of. But _please_ don't lord your age over me. What would you have
: > : > responded if you didn't know my age at all?
: > : >
: > : > -Evan
: >
: > : The same way unfortunately. It seems every Microsoft supporter has
: > : about your same intelligence.
: >
: > Charlie, Evan is trying to engage you in a battle of wits, but it seems
: > that you have yet to figure out how to put your gloves on, let alone, your
: > dukes up.
: I like to debate with people who've actually used the OS.
I was a Linux user since kernel v0.92. I used Linux until
late 1996. Do you still wish to debate with me? I'm still
waiting for you to present something that isn't your usual
Linux utopian wet-dream blithering (read: something worth
debating).
: Not people who were born yesterday with some talent in
: re-install.
Then don't try debating with yourself, because it appears as if that's
exactly who you're describing. I've given you ever opportunity to debate,
but you only respond with "I'm better than you!" statements.
: IF all OS's could be judged by how well a video game could be
: played, then this world wouldn't have any problems.
I don't play games on my computers. I have a Dreamcast for that.
: I'll decline the debate with him as the candidate just isn't there.
I see. I'll read this as "I'm neither capable nor willing to engage in
intelligent conversation". I should have expected as much.
*sigh* Oh, the nostaligia. I used to take great pride in banning twits
like Charlie from EFNet #Linux. It was always interesting to see what
they would /msg back to me. :-)
--
.-----.
|[_] :| Stephen S. Edwards II | NetBSD: Free of hype and license.
| = :| "Artificial Intelligence -- The engineering of systems that
| | yield results such as, 'The answer is 6.7E23... I think.'"
|_..._| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount
------------------------------
From: josco <[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: Tue, 16 May 2000 16:49:52 -0700
On Tue, 16 May 2000, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> josco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Then please quote the statement that MS innovates with undocumented
> API's.
> The words "undocumented" and "API" do not appear in that statement.
They didn't have to appear. I'm talking about SEMANTICS, not SYNTAX.
Now you go find your quotes for me.
> > The concept of time confuses you. MS designs and uses a new API in the
> > OS, at a later date they document the API.
>
> How can MS use the API before they've written it? The SDK's are available
> to the public long before the API is complete.
Q: How can a programmer use an API before it is part of the OS? A: It's
part of the application.
MS's Apps group designs and implements the API and the OS group includes
it into Windows. MS's advantage begins when the app programmer is told
he/she can add APIs to improve their product over the competitors.
Its so simple a child can understand the advantage. OLE is a good example
but MS says there ar emany others - they scream they cannot be split least
innovation be ruined.
> It's not an API when they design it, it's simply a function of their app.
And the Scarecrow didn't have a brain until he got his diploma.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
