Linux-Advocacy Digest #152, Volume #30 Fri, 10 Nov 00 01:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Les Mikesell")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Caldera OpenLinux User)
Re: so REALLY, what's the matter with Microsoft? (.)
Re: Disapointed in the election (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Disapointed in the election ("Clifford W. Racz")
Re: Linux get new term? ("Clifford W. Racz")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Les Mikesell")
Re: so REALLY, what's the matter with Microsoft? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Linus Confirms 2.4 In December ("Bennetts family")
Re: so REALLY, what's the matter with Microsoft? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: The laptop with Linux lasted exactly one week....... ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Can you love a platform without being a bigot? (Shane Phelps)
Re: Linux Is Lame. Sorry but it is true ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Linux Is Lame. Sorry but it is true ("Les Mikesell")
Re: OS stability ("Les Mikesell")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 04:54:35 GMT
"Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8uekur$43i$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > From email, things should be viewed,
> > > > not run, regardless of what the sender arbitrarily named them.
> > >
> > > Why only email ? How about the web ? Networks ? Floppy disks ?
> >
> > The web, of course - nothing but active-X treats web-retreived content
> > as trusted. Networks are up to you and your network administrator
> > as to how you trust what comes from them, and only you know about
> > the contents of your floppies. The point is that as soon as you
> > copy any of this stuff on your hard drive you lose track of the
> > source and the potential for trojans.
>
> Bingo. Noting that the difference between saving to the hard disk then
> opening it and opening it directly is largely one of semantics, especially
> when the default is *not* to open.
Saving to disk is worse. At that point you effectively own it.
> > > They should be handled by file *type*, for consistency.
> >
> > Just because a file is named something.pl should not mean
> > that I am ready for perl to execute it. When I want it
> > executable, I'll make it executable. And the contents
> > should specify the interpreter.
>
> Once again you confuse executing with opening. When making arguments
> against Windows, use Windows terminology.
I am making arguments about an email program. It does not have
to inherit all of Windows problems in order to run there.
Still there is a difference between opening and executing a perl
script. I would open it to view or edit its contents.
> > > Why ? I thought you Unix folk revelled in your "diversity".
> >
> > Not when the diversity includes insane insecurity.
>
> Which this doesn't.
Do you remember the problem here or not?
> > > There is no reason whatsoever for a "window" in Unix to behave like a
> > > "window" in Windows. There *is* a reason, though, for icons to behave
> > > consistently within an operating system.
> >
> > There is a reason for a concept of trusted and untrusted content and
> > there is a long history that Windows products completely ignore.
>
> If the user trusts it, then it's trusted. Period. Much like Unix.
Of course. But any reasonable system will distinguish between
enough trust to view something and enough trust to allow it to
take control with all your permissions. Outlook doesn't.
> > > > No, that is the worst possible action - you no longer have any
> > > > reason not to trust the contents since you have blessed it into
> > > > the filesystem.
> > >
> > > So the way every mailer on earth works - by letting you save it - is
the
> > > "worst possible action".
> >
> > It is your choice.
>
> Our point precisely.
No, you would have a point if you had previously been able to
safely view the contents, or had been warned that the content
of this attachment has no preconfigured safe viewer and is
unlike normal multimedia mail attachments.
> > If you want to shoot off your foot you should
> > be allowed to.
>
> Really ? So far in this thread you've spent countless posts arguing you
> *shouldn't* be able to.
No, I have never said anything like that. What I have said is that
you should be allowed to know whether the gun is loaded and
which way it is pointing at the time you pull the trigger or deposit
it where children play. You, on the other hand keep insisting
that such knowledge is unimportant as you make your choice.
Ready, fire, aim...
> > However, Windows prevents you from ever being
> > able to tell if the gun is loaded or not.
>
> Bullshit. Windows provides the same facilities for checking Unix does.
> Extensions, icons, the ability (the default !) to save to permanent
storage
> for examination.
Yet most of the Windows-using world has been unable to get this right.
I have trouble myself trying to get anything but the default action to
happen to any file under windows and I'd bet that 90% of the users
don't know it is possible.
I don't see any equivalence here in either functionality or ease of use
when compared to automatically running a viewer for each type
that can safely be viewed and telling you that the unknown types
do not have a safe handler before you choose to bless it with your
ownership in the filesystem.
> > > I used to think you were marginally objective. Now I see you're just
a
> > > "Microsoft did it == bad" nutcase.
> >
> > Once the file is on your disk, how do you expect *anything else* or
> > anyone else to ever know it came from an insecure source.
>
> THE SAME WAY YOU DO IN ANY OTHER OS.
An OS must assume that if you copy the file into the filesystem that
you trust its contents or otherwise take responsibility for it. However
other mailers do not prevent you from making an informed choice
about this before you do it.
> > You
> > are just dropping that loaded gun in a place where children play.
>
> With the safety on. Just like every other OS.
Huh? Anyone who touches it is still going to invoke the default action.
But now it belongs to you.
> > > > It doesn't matter what either of us think about it. We know exactly
> > > > what the result of this situation is - one disaster after another.
> > >
> > > And the three mouseclicks between opening it from the email and
opening
> it
> > > from the filesystem are going to matter to people like that ? Yeah,
> > right.
> >
> > It isn't the extra effort that matters, it is being able to know the
> > difference
> > between something safe and ordinary and something dangereous.
>
> Which is identical regardless of where the attachment is being opened
from.
No, it is only hidden in Outlook. Mailers with a mailcap concept can
avoid turning over control to the whims of the sender and let you
know that you have something unusual.
> > > SO every mailer in the world that can handle attachments is broken ?
Or
> > are
> > > the Unix ones ok because Microsoft don't write them ?
> >
> > Every mailer that lets the attachment content execute it's choice of
> > interpreter whether it is a program known to be safe or not is broken.
>
> Funny, that's different to what you wrote the first time
You must have me confused with someone else. I have repeated
exactly the same point over and over. Do I have to say it again
for every instance of someone executing a virus accidentally?
> > That just happens to be the kind that Microsoft wrote.
>
> No, it does not.
Did they buy Outlook from some other company?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Caldera OpenLinux User <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 20:54:56 -0800
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
On Thu, 09 Nov 2000, Colin R. Day wrote:
>Sam Morris wrote:
>
>> Outlook Express displays the message, with a paperclip button. Clicking on
>> the paperclip gives you a menu with one entry for each attachment. Selecting
>> an item from this meny shows you the warning dialog with the option to Open
>> or Save (Default).. You can also save all the attachments via the Save
>> dialog box.
>>
>> If images are attached then they are displayed below the image. However,
>> nothing is run without your permission.
>
>But the problem here is of informed consent. Do Windows users know enough
>about shell scripts/programs to give informed consent?
MS's software is designed by lawyers. The user consented when they opened the
e-mail therefore it's not a design flaw but misuse of a wonderful product.
There was no risk until the software was used and permission was given.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: so REALLY, what's the matter with Microsoft?
Date: 10 Nov 2000 04:54:49 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy . <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> "Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>> Curtis <alliem@kas*spam*net.com> writes:
>>>
>>> > . wrote...
>>> > > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Curtis <alliem@kas*spam*net.com> wrote:
>>> > > > Chad Myers wrote...
>>> > > >> > It cant support true realtime applications
>>> > > >>
>>> > > >> BS. You have nothing to back this claim up. Besides, are you
>> claiming Linux
>>> > > >> can? ROFL...
>>> > >
>>> > > > Take a look at :
>>> > >
>>> > > >
>> http://www.win2000mag.com/Articles/Index.cfm?ArticleID=7598&Key=Forecast
>>> > >
>>> > > > [...]VenturCom offers three products that provide and take advantage
>> of a
>>> > > > realtime environment in NT, and the company recently released
>> Win32rt, a
>>> > > > common realtime API for NT and Windows CE.[....]
>>> > >
>>> > > Now actually use them. Go ahead, check out the granularity of stat
>>> > > reporting with XRNOR on a fission core.
>>> > >
>>> > > And then wonder for about 3 seconds why no nuclear facility in the
>> world
>>> > > uses the NT version.
>>> >
>>> > You're changing the goal posts. The original claim was that WinNT cannot
>>> > run real time applications. This is simply false.
>>>
>>> I've never seen a real-time version of NT.
>>>
>>> Where is it? (just curious)
>> http://www.microsoft.com/windows/embedded/nt/default.asp
>> Is the embedded version of NT. If you include the real-time extensions
>> offered by VentureCom (WNT/E includes a subset of VentureCom's product, but
>> it's not strictly hard real-time unless you add the full real-time
>> extensions) then it's completely deterministic down to 6.7 microsecond
>> accuracies.
> Which of course is highly determined by processor architecture, and still
> cannot hold a candle to the competition, which (in QNX/Neutrino's case)
> is 0.55 milliseconds on a PIII.
Sorry, I of course meant "microseconds". See www.qnx.com for details.
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: Disapointed in the election
Date: 10 Nov 2000 04:55:50 GMT
On Thu, 9 Nov 2000 23:46:07 -0500, Clifford W. Racz wrote:
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>Oh yeah, Nader. "I can see a future with zero emissions... because industry
>will be powered by solar energy."
Maybe he's been taking too many hallucinogenics.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: "Clifford W. Racz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Disapointed in the election
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 23:52:29 -0500
At least Bush has integrity. And when he talks, he doesn't lie
pathologically.
But I guess that doesn't matter because the economy is good. Thanks to
Clinton-Gore? No... Thanks to the Reagan/Bush administration and the END OF
THE COLD WAR. Are you people dense or just ignorant?
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > Of the two major candidates, Gore was the one who flunked out of school
> > twice. Why vote for Gore/Bush if you don't believe in them? By voting
> > for a minor party candidate onc can help that party be on the ballot for
> > next time.
> > --
> > Russ Lyttle, PE
> > <http://www.flash.net/~lyttlec>
> > Not Powered by ActiveX
> Maybe Gore did flunk high school, and I am told Bush went to Yale. But
> at least Gore can f***ing speak ENGLISH! And perhaps knows where
> BELGRADE is! And doesn't think it essential to point out that the USA
> gets imports from other countries!
> (Incidentally, I realise my grammar is terrible in this post, but it
> makes the point more robostly than if I had been grammatically correct).
>
> --
> http://www.guild.bham.ac.uk/chess-club
------------------------------
From: "Clifford W. Racz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.politics.election
Subject: Re: Linux get new term?
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 23:58:22 -0500
"Moderator" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Bradley J. Milton" wrote:
> >
> > Now that Bush won the election, what does that mean for Linux?
> > I understand that the White House uses a lot of Windoze now. Do
> > you think this trend will continue under the new administration,
> > or is there hope that there will be more support for Alternate
> > OS'es for the Internet Age?
maybe, but the White House servers are machines running Solaris. See it at
http://uptime.netcraft.com/graph?display=uptime&site=www.whitehouse.gov
> "Unfairly but truthfully, our party has been tagged as
> being against things. Anti-immigrant, for example."
> -George W. Bush, New York Times, 7/2/2000
"Boo hoo... we are loosers. Waaaaaaa."
-Democratic Party, 11/7/00 thru 11/9/00
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 05:02:27 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8udvo9$32d$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > > How would it know abouut .pl anyway?
> > > How *could* it know?
> >
> > That is the point. It doesn't know, and shouldn't know about
executables
> > and should never allow them to be executed. It should only hand to
> > programs known *not* to execute untrusted content.
>
> Such as?
Programs that won't do anything other than display regardless
of the content.
> > A word viewer. Or word if there is a command line or programmatic
> > way to force it not to execute embedded macros.
>
> Surprise! Word asks you whatever you want to run the code, by default.
> You've to answer yes/no in order to view the document.
If you have to make this choice blindly, then word is not a suitable
viewer unless the mailer can force the option off.
> > > *.exe?
> >
> > A hex dumper.
>
> How useful is *that* for the average users?
Much more useful than the default action of ILOVEYOU.TXT.vbs.
> Can I use netscape in order to view JPEG?
> Is it *safe* to view JPEG in netscape?
>
> Not!
> http://www.debian.org/security/2000/20000901
>
> Netscape Communicator JPEG-Comment Heap Overwrite Vulnerability
> a.. executes arbitrary code in the comment field of a JPEG image
> You see my point?
No but I can see that you can't tell the difference between a program
bug and a bad design. Using Netscape to view a jpeg is about like
using a steamroller to squash a fly anyway.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: so REALLY, what's the matter with Microsoft?
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 23:16:03 -0600
"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8ufupu$2kd$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> I've never seen a real-time version of NT.
> >>
> >> Where is it? (just curious)
>
> > http://www.microsoft.com/windows/embedded/nt/default.asp
>
> > Is the embedded version of NT. If you include the real-time extensions
> > offered by VentureCom (WNT/E includes a subset of VentureCom's product,
but
> > it's not strictly hard real-time unless you add the full real-time
> > extensions) then it's completely deterministic down to 6.7 microsecond
> > accuracies.
>
> Which of course is highly determined by processor architecture, and still
> cannot hold a candle to the competition, which (in QNX/Neutrino's case)
> is 0.55 milliseconds on a PIII.
Uhh.. .55 milliseconds does *NOT* beat 6.7 microseconds. microseconds are
smaller than milliseconds.
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 05:14:53 GMT
"Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8ue4go$69q$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> Personally I believe the important sacrifices have already been made. I
> doubt many of the people who were burnt the first time will allow it to
> happen again. Lessons learnt hard are lessons learnt well.
Considering that it is Microsoft itself that is now learning the lesson,
I think things will change in the future... Do you consider it safe to
store your credit card number or other personal or financial information
on the same machine that is ready and willing to execute any code
someone sends you without letting you realize that it is unusual
content for an email attachment? Would you let your family or friends
that you trust not to damage anything intentionally use outlook on this
machine?
>
> That can be explained in about 10 lines of instructions. Or it can be
> centrally distributed as a registry patch by the sysadmin.
Perfect - you want to train users to open *.reg files they
receive in email???
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Bennetts family" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linus Confirms 2.4 In December
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 16:18:42 +1100
"Relax" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:3a0b5096$0$14404$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "His statement says that he knows of no major showstoppers, and that he's
> asking the major devel houses to deploy the test kernels internally and
> start bug testing. Early December, hopefully, for a release"
>
> Start bug testing in mid-November, release in early December...
>
> ROTFL!
Come off it! The 2.4.0testx series has been going for /months/ now, and the
2.3 line is years old. Test10 seems to be fine from what I've heard (I'm
going to patch it on this weekend).
--Chris
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: so REALLY, what's the matter with Microsoft?
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 23:21:08 -0600
"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8ufv2p$8ea$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Is the embedded version of NT. If you include the real-time extensions
> >> offered by VentureCom (WNT/E includes a subset of VentureCom's product,
but
> >> it's not strictly hard real-time unless you add the full real-time
> >> extensions) then it's completely deterministic down to 6.7 microsecond
> >> accuracies.
>
> > Which of course is highly determined by processor architecture, and
still
> > cannot hold a candle to the competition, which (in QNX/Neutrino's case)
> > is 0.55 milliseconds on a PIII.
>
> Sorry, I of course meant "microseconds". See www.qnx.com for details.
Hmm.. the only article on qnx.com that I can find shows at least a 8
microsecond latency (3.3 usinterrupt latency and 4.7 us scheduling latency).
http://www.qnx.com/literature/whitepapers/archoverview.html
But it's really irrelvant, since it doesn't matter which one is faster. It
only matters if it's fast enough.
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The laptop with Linux lasted exactly one week.......
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 05:21:21 GMT
"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8ucmof$3bu$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Linux is a disaster in the hands of average Joe. It is clunky and
> > things that are so easy to set up under Windows, end up becoming week
> > long projects under Linux.
>
> Read: linux isnt for morons.
Just exactly what would have happened with NT loaded on NTFS in
the same situation? It is about equally vulnerable and much, much
harder to fix - impossible, I think, unless you can now take a bootable
Win2k CDROM and fix up an NT system. I suspect you would have
to upgrade to do it if it works at all.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Shane Phelps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Can you love a platform without being a bigot?
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 16:56:06 +1100
Jon Davis wrote:
>
> Just FYI I found some free time to write another lame article, this time
> about platform bigotry ... This one's not so good--not that either of the
> previous articles were--but .. well, I'm interested in your feedback anyway.
>
> http://www.planetspooge.com/Social/articles/-platformbigot.htm
>
> Regards,
> Jon Davis
Joe,
Nice satire. I'll give it an A.
I especially liked the bit in Para 5 where you said:
> You will rarely find a Windows programmer bashing Linux, for example,
ROTFLOL about that!!
Para 7 was good too, though you might like to amend:
> except for the occasional outlandish hype-machine competitor (i.e. Netscape, Sun)
to include STAC, Caldera (Digital Research). Apple and perhaps Citrix.
Also in para 7:
> and having little or nothing externally as a permanent external source
> of emotional excitement (i.e.role models)
is a beautiful piece of pseudo-bigotry, bearing in mind MS's history of
claiming that NT in it's various incarnations will bury Netware and Unix.
Masterly!
I also liked the deliberate redefinition of "standard" based on a general
dictionary rather than the technical meaning.
Very nice sleight-of-hand, reminiscent of slippery willy's redefinition
of sex. True spin-doctor stuff!!
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Is Lame. Sorry but it is true
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 05:54:10 GMT
"Pete Goodwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:nZEO5.7216$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Adobe Photoshop which came with my $99 scanner is one example. Paintshop
> > Pro is another example. That Gimp program seems to need all kinds of
> > plugins to do anything useful. And even if these programs are already on
> > my system Gimp can't figure out where they are and neither can I.
>
> Ah my favourite Windows application, Paint Shop Pro 7.
Have you tried the Corel Photopaint
http://linux.corel.com/products/pp9/download.htm
yet? I don't do much graphics so I can't tell if it is good or not.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Is Lame. Sorry but it is true
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 06:00:09 GMT
"Angular Turnip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Linux simply put is a piece of crap. I installed Mandrake 7.2 yesterday
> on a generic home built system and I can't believe that anyone but a
> real techie would switch from Windows just to run Linux.
Was there some reason for posting this long list of personal failings
to a newsgroup of people who experience none of those problems?
If you want help, try one of the tech groups and someone will show
you what went wrong. Here, I suspect all you will get are instructions
on how to insert the CD.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS stability
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 06:07:46 GMT
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:JzCO5.7360$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > We dont all run windows, erik.
>
> Rarely is not never. You have to reboot to apply a kernel patch. Period.
> Machines with several year uptimes simply have not had those patches
> applied.
You mean you've never run adb against a running kernel? Live a little...
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
