Linux-Advocacy Digest #171, Volume #30 Sat, 11 Nov 00 01:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Curtis)
Re: If Microsoft Made Cars: ("Tom Wilson")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Curtis)
Re: Linux Out perfoms Windows (Glitch)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Bruce Schuck")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Curtis)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Another Silent Computer :( ("kosh")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Les Mikesell")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Les Mikesell")
Re: If Microsoft Made Cars: (sfcybear)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Of course, there is a down side... (Glitch)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Les Mikesell")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Curtis <alliem@kas*spam*net.com>
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: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 00:23:24 -0500
Les Mikesell wrote...
> > > If it's unknown, they it wouldn't be executed or even viewed, it will
> give
> > > you the open with window.
> >
> >
> > > As for executables, that is indeed a problem.
> >
> > I take this statement back, in the message box that Outlook gives you, the
> > full file name appears, even with extentions off.
> > No reason you wouldn't be able to make informed decisioned.
>
> Call up a few hundred people and quiz them on filename
> associations. Let me know the percentage that know what
> will happen with more than a couple.
The best way to deal with ignorance is to get rid of it.
Finding ways to work around ignorance is just an alternative and should
be qualified as such instead of advocating it as the way things should
be.
--
ACM.
________________________________________________________
"A thing is not necessarily true because a man dies for it."
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: If Microsoft Made Cars:
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 05:22:51 GMT
"Donn Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Gavin Cato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Do you want to pull anything else out of your hat that we all heard
years
> > ago you twit?
>
> Haha, this is the first time I heard this. Pretty funny. BTW, it's
fitting
> that a person calling someone else a twit quotes an entire post for no
> reason.
>
Standard operating procedure around here.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[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: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 07:23:03 +0200
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:0n4P5.18413$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8uilot$bvi$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >
> > > But what if the icon is generic or an unknown? Also, a lot of
> executables
> > > come with their own icons.
> >
> > If it's unknown, they it wouldn't be executed or even viewed, it will
give
> > you the open with window.
> > As for executables, that is indeed a problem.
>
> What if they are just unknown to you?
Not that many out there that can be executed.
Save to disk, check in notepad.
If binary, run regedit, check KKET_CLASSES_ROOT, check for the default
actions.
If I get it too often, build a program in 10 minutes that will do this for
me.
If code, read code, if unknown/dangerous code, don't run it.
------------------------------
From: Curtis <alliem@kas*spam*net.com>
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: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 00:31:11 -0500
Les Mikesell wrote...
> > Yes, he quite 'matter-of-factly' states that they should examine the
> > files before opening them. I wonder which planet he's on. If he's on
> > earth then I can just picture his cracked glasses with tape holding a
> > broken bridge together, as well as a skinny, freckled face with visible
> > vessels running under sun starved skin. <g> IOW's he needs to get out
> > more and get a reasonable perspective on his arguments.
>
> You still don't understand the difference between opening and
> executing something, do you?
Yes I do. Why would you think otherwise? :-)
My point is, what's the point in reading something you don't understand?
> If the mailer can let you view
> the contents without letting it take control it should go ahead
> and do it without any silly warnings.
Even if only a programmer or some such user will make sense out of what
is being viewed.
> If it can't, there is a
> pretty good chance that you shouldn't execute it under any
> conditions unless you were expecting to be sent a program
> from someone you know.
So why view it then if it's not a safe filetype or you aren't expecting
it. Just delete the damned thing. Why view it? A smart virus author would
leave little tidbits of understandable bait for the ignorant user trying
to make some sense out of what he's trying to decipher while viewing the
files contents.
> I think it is much more reasonable to recognize hex code than
> it is to know what a vbs icon means, but neither one should
> be necessary to view your mail.
<cough> Pardon me? I disagree.
--
ACM.
________________________________________________________
"A thing is not necessarily true because a man dies for it."
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 00:36:17 -0500
From: Glitch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Out perfoms Windows
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Thu, 12 Oct 2000 01:10:41 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>
> >> What happens if you redirect to a printer?
> >>
> >> claire
> >
> >LOL!
> >
> >Time to wheel out the 3000rpm drum printer to proove linux is faster.
>
> Nah. Time to wheel out the windoze printer struggling w/ a ghz processor
> because although the designer thought to use the CPU to save costs, said
> designer failed to realize that windoze can't walk and chew gum at the same
> time.
my PC can't load ICQ and Yahoo Messenger at the same time w/o Messenger
going down. Using 98 of course.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[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: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 07:30:02 +0200
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:oy4P5.18443$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I think it is much more reasonable to recognize hex code than
> it is to know what a vbs icon means, but neither one should
> be necessary to view your mail.
Hex code is more recognizable than a VBS icon?
You *really* need to get out more.
VBS icon is a blue scroll on a white rectangle with a fold on the upper
right corner.
Hex is numbers.
Joe User will be able to recognize what more easily?
Cop: Is this the virus that ruined that computer?
Joe User: Sure it is, it's still wearing that silly blue scroll.
Geek User: Sure it is, I recognized because of the 0x343433
------------------------------
From: "Bruce Schuck" <[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 21:34:45 -0800
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:5X3P5.18385$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8ug89q$e9l$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > >
> > > Saving to disk is worse. At that point you effectively own it.
> >
> > So let's get this straight:
> > 1. Executing directly from the email is Bad.
> > 2. Saving it to disk is Worse.
> >
> > JUST HOW THE FUCK ARE PEOPLE SUPPOSED TO DEAL WITH ATTACHMENTS ?
>
> I've said it over and over. The mailer should know the MIME types
> that it can display safely and either have the corresponding code
> internally or a list of programs that are safe.
Outlook has a security fix that does just that.
Now that thats out of the way, when will Linux stop allowing root exploits
so easily?
------------------------------
From: Curtis <alliem@kas*spam*net.com>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 00:33:44 -0500
Les Mikesell wrote...
> > Can car makers guarantee that cars will be locked?
>
> Does that justify making it difficult to use the lock? Instead of
> a push button you have to memorize an infinite table of filename
> associations that you can't see anywhere.
Please don't blow this out of proportion. Really now, how many file types
would you need to tell the user is safe in a practical working
environment? They'll pick up most of the rest as they go along. Treat the
rest as unsafe ... simple and view them or delete them.
--
ACM.
________________________________________________________
"A thing is not necessarily true because a man dies for it."
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 07:36:17 +0200
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:Yr4P5.18426$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8uif8l$72l$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > How is joe user going to be able to tell what's what in a perl script
> > > file when he opens it to view the contents rather than just run it?
> > > Hmmmm?
> >
> > What Aaron & Les refuse to understand that anyone who can read
VBS/VBA/JS
> > (some of the simplest in existance) can understand basic safety
measures.
>
> And what you refuse to understand is that viewing email should not
> require being intimate with a particular platform's odd concepts of
> file associations.
Particular platform?
You might get away with this on a minority OS, but not on a majority one.
Odd concept?
.COM;.EXE;.BAT;.CMD;.VBS;.VBE;.JS;.JSE;.WSF;.WSH
Are the files that you need to keep an eye after.
List being easily accessible to anyone.
> > Those who can't...
> > Well, Les suggest a hex editor for exe files.
> > I don't know what users Les has to deal with, but I want them.
>
> Many are c++ developers for a windows product. But the CVS
> repository for the source code isn't on a windows box...
IOW, about 10x more knowledgable than the average end user of a windows box.
When you have *that* kind of a userbase, it's easy to forget that *not*
everybody can read exe files in hex editors.
Also, you probably don't hear complaints about "my taskbar is on the top
side of the screen, and I can't work like this" (Only I'm translating it to
technical terms)
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 07:40:19 +0200
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:pM2P5.18368$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:FYJO5.2465$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >
> > You can't have an enterprise-ready application with a faulty and
> > half-baked file system (ext2). Even the MS you consider to be so
> > inferior knows this.
>
> Ext2 has no more problems that NTFS - less if you ever let an
> NTFS fill with tiny files.
Fixed.
> NT has been under development for years. Have you warned
> people away from using it?
One problem I've with OSS model is that it's always under development.
I don't know about you, but I think that at some point (check topic) someone
has to say "This is as much as we are going to put into this version. From
now on, we will only pull out the bugs."
Check Netscape & Mozilla, for example, that is a good example of how I think
it should be done. (The theory, it's good. In practice, however, and the
way netscape did it...)
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 07:40:44 +0200
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:L_2P5.18374$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8ug8fh$941$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > 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?
> >
> > Which would be, er, any machine I can think of.
>
> You mean you have never seen a machine without outlook installed?
No, just that I've never seen a system without those capabilities.
> > > Would you let your family or friends
> > > that you trust not to damage anything intentionally use outlook on
this
> > > machine?
> >
> > "Rm" will do a far more effective job of accidentally damaging things
that
> > outlook will. Should we take out rm ?
>
> Rm isn't going to mail your files off to someone who wants to steal
> the contents. Outlook has demonstrated this capability again and
> again.
Details?
------------------------------
From: "kosh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Silent Computer :(
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 22:30:41 +0700
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Javaduke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Running SuSE 7.0, simply turn off PNP OS in the bios and everything
> should be sweet, I have my soundcard up and running in now time. This
> solution should work for most distro's.
>
> javaduke
Actually I do that with every os now. It seems to make things work better
under any os. On mandrake 7.1 and above a sblive is detected
automatically. I am not sure why some people have so many problems. I
have helped at least a hundred people now install mandrake on their
systems. I have never seen problems like what claire and others here are
reporting.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[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: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 07:44:14 +0200
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:wh4P5.18400$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> First you think the people are too dumb to follow instructions. Now you
> think someone can tell them a dozen steps to make a program run and
> they will get them all right but not notice that this isn't the way they
> usually read their mail.
Murphy law, they are only dumb enough to follow instructions which are
helpful.
And it's not dozens of instructions, even on unix, it would be three at
worst, just about the attention span of an the average idiot.
save to disk.
go to where you saved it
execute it.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 07:44:50 +0200
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:b23P5.18376$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > B> I know how to behave with attacments, I don't blindly open exe/vbs
> files.
>
> Yes I don't question that. The question I asked was whether
> you would let other people use outlook on your machine. If
> you have to qualify the answer, there is clearly a problem.
Would you let other people run as root on your machine?
If you've to qualify the answer, there is clearly a problem.*
* Similar scenarios only when talking about win9x, I wouldn't have a problem
with anybody using win2k with outlook as long as he had his own account and
didn't use my own files.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[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: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 07:49:13 +0200
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:7H4P5.18468$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8uind4$t6h$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
>
> > > > You don't choose blindly, you say no, review the code, and then
choose
> > > > whatever to execute it.
> > >
> > > Can you guarantee that everyone will do it in exactly that
> > > order?
> >
> > Can car makers guarantee that cars will be locked?
>
> Does that justify making it difficult to use the lock? Instead of
> a push button you have to memorize an infinite table of filename
> associations that you can't see anywhere.
It's not hard to lock.
A> COM;.EXE;.BAT;.CMD;.VBS;.VBE;.JS;.JSE;.WSF;.WSH are the dangerous files.
You must have a different defination of infinite than I do.
B> regedit > Hket_Classes_Root will give you a list of all the registered
file types in the system.
------------------------------
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: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 05:52:14 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8uio3r$4ul$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > 'Edit it'? Does the dialog you use to open it in an editor really
replace
> > the word 'open' with 'edit'? Is the shortcut ALT-F/E now? To be
> > consistent, don't you need a 'File/edit' dialog inside outlook for
> > the attachments too?
>
> *Sigh deeply*
> I don't like to talk to ignorant people, please find a windows machine
with
> outlook (shouldn't be hard to find) and send yourself a couple of
> attachments, see how it deals with it.
Oh - I thought it was obvious from the badly-wrapped messages I've
been posting - and of course, the headers, that I am typing this in
outlook (just happens to be on the machine with the biggest screen
at home). When I click on an attachment, it does nothing resembling
what the desktop does, nor anything particularly useful for a mailer.
I normally read mail in Netscape, but since it is on an IMAP server
I can see the same stuff here. Taking a message with some graphs
of network use as an example, Netscape just displays them inline
with the message, which is fairly useful. In outlook I have to
double-click, then I get this pop-up warning about how the png is
going to be harmful which you seem to think is consistent with the
desktop, I guess. Then, since I really don't want to splatter png files
all over my disk I pick open, and it dumps me into Adobe PhotoDeluxe
which takes a while to load. I didn't want to edit the thing, I just want
to see it. Remind me why people use this for mail.
> > > The icon of the file tells you.
> >
> > I'm icon-challanged.
>
> I leave this satement to talk for itself.
Looks like hiroglyphics to me - didn't that go out of style
a few thousand years ago when they invented the alphabet?
> > > The extension tells you.
> >
> > What's an extension? .TXT.vbs
>
> Again, you show great ignorance here.
> extention is whatever come after the last dot.
This is very system-specific. Why is the last
one special? Why should I have to know that?
> > > The filename will usually give some indication.
> >
> > To whom?
>
> The user.
Why do users have to memorize all this stuff. I thought
windows was supposed to be easy.
> > > Most people are stupid and/or ignorant. Your point ?
> >
> > Is it impossible to fool you?
>
> It's impossible to fool me to open a virus from unknown source which might
> contain dangerous code.
Why is that, and why is it not true for most other people?
> > > Neither does outlook.
> >
> > It did, and does, and we know what it causes.
>
> See comment above about ignorance.
Most people are ignorant of system-specific details.
Most systems allow them to remain that way and not
have their files stolen.
> > > No, outlook only executes something you tell it to.
> >
> > No one ever told it to execute visual basic. It did it because
> > of a choice the sender made.
>
> No, it did it because you choose to open the VBS file without viewing it
> first. *Your* fault.
Opening is the normal thing to do with mail. People should not be
forced to memorize the difference between every script interpreter
and photo editor before viewing their mail. Mailers should not
start a script interpreter just because the sender chose a file
extension associated with it.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[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: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 07:51:17 +0200
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:GE4P5.18461$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8uio5i$5gb$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > > If it's unknown, they it wouldn't be executed or even viewed, it will
> give
> > > you the open with window.
> >
> >
> > > As for executables, that is indeed a problem.
> >
> > I take this statement back, in the message box that Outlook gives you,
the
> > full file name appears, even with extentions off.
> > No reason you wouldn't be able to make informed decisioned.
>
> Call up a few hundred people and quiz them on filename
> associations. Let me know the percentage that know what
> will happen with more than a couple.
You need to remember less than 10.
BTW, that is not a fair quiz.
Call up a few hundred people who regularly use computer and ask them about
filename extentions, you'll get much fairer results.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[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: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 07:55:28 +0200
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8uiqj8$v7r$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:GE4P5.18461$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8uio5i$5gb$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > > If it's unknown, they it wouldn't be executed or even viewed, it
will
> > give
> > > > you the open with window.
> > >
> > >
> > > > As for executables, that is indeed a problem.
> > >
> > > I take this statement back, in the message box that Outlook gives you,
> the
> > > full file name appears, even with extentions off.
> > > No reason you wouldn't be able to make informed decisioned.
> >
> > Call up a few hundred people and quiz them on filename
> > associations. Let me know the percentage that know what
> > will happen with more than a couple.
>
> You need to remember less than 10.
Correction, exactly 10.
> BTW, that is not a fair quiz.
> Call up a few hundred people who regularly use computer and ask them about
> filename extentions, you'll get much fairer results.
>
>
>
------------------------------
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: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 05:58:41 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8uiouc$dpk$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > >
> > > > But what if the icon is generic or an unknown? Also, a lot of
> > executables
> > > > come with their own icons.
> > >
> > > If it's unknown, they it wouldn't be executed or even viewed, it will
> give
> > > you the open with window.
> > > As for executables, that is indeed a problem.
> >
> > What if they are just unknown to you?
>
>
> Not that many out there that can be executed.
> Save to disk, check in notepad.
> If binary, run regedit, check KKET_CLASSES_ROOT, check for the default
> actions.
> If I get it too often, build a program in 10 minutes that will do this for
> me.
> If code, read code, if unknown/dangerous code, don't run it.
Is this that windows 'ease of use' you mentioned in the other message?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: If Microsoft Made Cars:
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 05:45:08 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Javaduke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Fuck mate, I only posted it for shits and giggles, this isn't a
religious war
> you know.
>
> javaduke
>
new around here hmmmm??? ;->
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
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: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 06:02:42 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8uipn7$lsq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Those who can't...
> > > Well, Les suggest a hex editor for exe files.
> > > I don't know what users Les has to deal with, but I want them.
> >
> > Many are c++ developers for a windows product. But the CVS
> > repository for the source code isn't on a windows box...
>
> IOW, about 10x more knowledgable than the average end user of a windows
box.
> When you have *that* kind of a userbase, it's easy to forget that *not*
> everybody can read exe files in hex editors.
> Also, you probably don't hear complaints about "my taskbar is on the top
> side of the screen, and I can't work like this" (Only I'm translating it
to
> technical terms)
Oh - the other part of the building is full of accountants.... The sales
people are mostly off in branch offices though, and we have several
other people who spend all their time keeping the windows boxes
running.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 01:08:08 -0500
From: Glitch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> "Clifford W. Racz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8uhk0h$kk7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In using Windows, there is a downside... like this for example.
> >
> > Dealing With OS Decay: Rebuilding Your Windows System from Scratch
> > http://www.zdnet.com/zdhelp/stories/main/0,5594,2531288,00.html
> >
> > I really don't think Linux has this problem, does it?
>
> Linux has one big advantage, those who use it knows what they are doing.
> I've a computer which *still* has the original OEM of win95, I bought it
> several months after win95 was out. (early 96, I think)
> It's in a working condition, BTW.
> It's doing its works (word processing and some emails now & then at the
> moment, before, it was used as a home computer, which include games,
> installing & uninstalling all kind of programs, the normal stuff)
> I don't plan to reinstall windows on it again, in the case of a total
> failure, it's going to be linux, but I don't expect any problems with it, as
> it is the most well-behaved computer that I've seen.
>
> I don't know how long a linux box would be able to survive if clueless
> people (with root access) would start fiddling with it.
>
at least Linux provides the capability for protection. No such
protection exists under Windows. Any user can delete files, any files.
------------------------------
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: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 06:08:15 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8uipbf$hug$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> > I think it is much more reasonable to recognize hex code than
> > it is to know what a vbs icon means, but neither one should
> > be necessary to view your mail.
>
> Hex code is more recognizable than a VBS icon?
> You *really* need to get out more.
> VBS icon is a blue scroll on a white rectangle with a fold on the upper
> right corner.
> Hex is numbers.
>
> Joe User will be able to recognize what more easily?
They are equally meaningless to someone who doesn't use
them. In a building with about 6 computers in every office
I can't say I've ever seen a VBS icon, or that I want to.
> Cop: Is this the virus that ruined that computer?
> Joe User: Sure it is, it's still wearing that silly blue scroll.
> Geek User: Sure it is, I recognized because of the 0x343433
You are dreaming - nobody is going to recognize vbs either.
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
******************************
