Linux-Advocacy Digest #172, Volume #30 Sat, 11 Nov 00 02:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Les Mikesell")
Re: What does KDE do after all (Craig Kelley)
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum (Craig Kelley)
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum (Craig Kelley)
Re: so REALLY, what's the matter with Microsoft? (Mike Byrns)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Curtis)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Curtis)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Les Mikesell")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Les Mikesell")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Les Mikesell")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Les Mikesell")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Curtis)
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum ("Les Mikesell")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Ayende Rahien")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 06:15:06 GMT
"Curtis" <alliem@kas*spam*net.com> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > 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.
Making everyone in the world memorize bizarre and arbitrary
name associations used by a single OS vendor is not going to
reduce ignorance.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Subject: Re: What does KDE do after all
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 10 Nov 2000 23:15:37 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi) writes:
> On 10 Nov 2000 13:16:00 -0700, Craig Kelley wrote:
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi) writes:
>
> >> > cut -f1 file | grep foo | wc -l > blah_count
> >>
> >> A pipe is not the same as a component. For example, you don't have
> >> bidirectional communication in the above example.
> >
> >Easily solved (if it is needed).
>
> Sure, sockets support bidirectional communication. But that doesn't
> make piping shell commands component-like.
That depends on your definition of component. If defined in the
traditional sense (a set of things which are constructed to do
something larger than their parts) then it is; if you restrict the
definition to that of Corba and DCOM, then it isn't. Regardless, you
can get the same functionality using different methods.
> >> stream. There is no object orientation. It is not even close to
> >> something like Corba, which supports object orientation
> >
> >Yes, pipes are inherently procedural and functional; but those are
> >just semantics more than anything
> > (see gtk as a good example of a
> >procedural language doing OO stuff).
>
> I agree that you can do OO in a procedural language, but I don't agree that
> you can do it in the limited pipe-this-into-that paradigm.
>
> I don't even think that you can flexibly use pipes in a procedural fashion.
But it happens all the time.
> >marshalling from you, just like XML (which promises to be the pipe
> >panacea in this regard -- a pipe can now be any arbitrarily complex data
> >structure, as long as the data description is understood on both
> >ends).
>
> That's only if you think of XML in terms of the callback driven sax-like
> API such as that used by libxml and Qt's XML.
It doesn't even have to be callback driven; XML is simply a standard
for marshalling data structures onto a 1-dimensional space (pipes).
> >Think about it; the whole internet is based on pipes and filters.
>
> Well, CORBA isn't (-;
:)
> >> distributed objects,
> >
> >ssh, rsh, wget (which has remote object activation for many network
> >protocols; even with late-binding activation of remote procedures
> >[like CGI, for example]).
>
> This is not an elegant or convenient way to do distributed OO programming
> though.
Elegance is in the eye of the beholder. Take this script from
slashdot:
#!/bin/sh
echo -n 'Bush winning by '
lynx -dump http://www.cnn.com/ | grep -2 PRESIDENT | perl -e '
while(<>){$n[$i++] = $1.$2.$3 if /\s(\d),(\d{3}),(\d{3})/}print $n[0]-$n[1];'
echo ' votes in Florida.'
This exibits all the behaviors of remote execution of objects in a
minimum ammount of code without the burden of CNN providing an ORB or
data description language.
> >> and late binding (even in C).
> >
> >All pipes are late binded, in a manner of speaking; static binding
>
> No they're not -- functions piped into each other operate on istreams
> and produce ostreams. A pipe connects an ostream to an istream.
> I don't see anything polymorphic going on here. To be late binded, a
> pipe would have to exhibit some kind of polymorphic behaviour, but all
> it really does is plug stream operators into each other ( in a fairly
> clumsy way in that you need to do it from the shell and start several
> processes to do it ).
Sure it's polymorphic. I can write a script that will install the
abstract set of packages that encompass the latest updates from
redhat.com on my system. The script doesn't know what commands are
going to run at "compilation"; perhaps libc will be updated and
ldconfig will run, or maybe the httpd daemon will restart -- who
knows? It is polymorphic. It is calling a package manager, which
operates on dynamic data to do something completely different (yet
related).
> If you're trying to say that distributed, network-aware programming has
> some precedents, I'd certainly agree with this. But the main thing that
> seperates CORBA from older models is that it's object oriented. I have a
> hard time believing that the more traditional alternatives are.
That is probably true; but it is still component-based programming
regardless, IMHO.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 10 Nov 2000 23:17:31 -0700
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Goldhammer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:vD%O5.75454$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> > Yes, that's entirely correct. The use of Raw partitions have nothing
> > to do with database sizes. It's an issue of performance. However,
> > it must be said that you may not gain anything from raw partitons
> > at all. IIRC, Oracle has also been recommending the converse route, if,
> > for example, you are intending to set up Oracle on Sparc machines
> > running Solaris.
> >
> > The bottom line is: people can and do maintain >50 Gb databases
> > (Oracle or otherwise) under linux without dedicated partitions,
> > and thus, of course, Myers's comment is complete nonsense.
>
> Very few db, if any, keeps databases in one huge files.
> It's inefficent to do so.
Just ask the computing department in my organization that runs
Microsoft Exchange. It stores all mail, calendar and related items
for everybody in one huge file.
They came to us for help when it became corrupt. We had to use linux
and some open-source tools to dissect a bad backup tape.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 10 Nov 2000 23:18:53 -0700
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > >So you can't use Oracle on Linux for >2GB databases without fancy
> > >techniques or special filesystems.
> > >
> > >Thank you for finally ending this thread of this topic.
> >
> > I'd put it even more strongly than that. It is IMPOSSIBLE to use
> > Oracle on Linux for >2GB databases on *any* file system, on
> > *any* 32-bit machine, without a recompile using the above options
> > and/or explicit use of the xxx64() API and/or multiseeking techniques.
>
> Note that Postgres does it whether or not the OS supports 64 bit
> operations, so it is certainly not impossible. Oracle may not
> do without raw partition access but it would not be impossible.
You don't need to use raw partitions either. We have an 80GB Oracle
database which runs on top of ext2 on an unmodified Linux 2.2 kernel.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: Mike Byrns <[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: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 06:20:57 GMT
chrisv wrote:
> "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Therefore... *PL0NK*
>
> Oops! You lose! And you were doing so well up until then....
Heh. Losing is when you are forced to concede not when the other yahoo
loses all by themselves :-)
------------------------------
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 01:24:19 -0500
Les Mikesell wrote...
> 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).
But you really are ignorant. That's Outlook *Express* that you're using
and not MS Outlook. They're two very different applications.
> 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.
That's an unnecessary warning, I agree.
> 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.
If you stupidly associate PNG's with Adobe Photodeluxe then what do you
expect????!!!! Install a basic image viewer and fix up your associations.
If I double click a PNG file anywhere, ACDSee opens it. I previously had
PMView open image files. Paint Shop Pro never does this since *I* set it
not to do so. It's not the PNG file that determines which application
opens it, neither does Outlook *Express* do this. Outlook *express* uses
the application associated with the file in Windows as you made it. This
whole associations thing only opens another can of worms.
I just don't know if we can ever make computers idiot proof. They simply
have got to learn how to use it.
> > > > 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?
Being difficult are we?
> > > > 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?
It's good to know. It gives you more control. It allows you to
competently take control instead of making the computer control you,
which is what you seem happy with.
> > > > 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.
A computer is never really easy to use with any reasonable level of
competence. I think you know this but are deliberately being difficult.
Windows is EASIER to use than other OS's such as Linux/UNIX. It's easy to
use at a basic level but not easy to use competently and efficiently.
Now, I don't wish to turn this into a Linux vs Windows argument about
ease of use. I will concede before this starts that Linux/UNIX both offer
the user a high degree of control, flexibility and power once the user in
question is willing to learn how to use them and need to use them to
efficiently get their type of work done. Linux/UNIX, out of the box,
makes a lot of tasks easier to accomplish than Windows if you're
proficient with both OS's.
[..]
> > > 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.
What does that have to do with learning a few file extensions to be
cautious with when dealing with e-mail attachments?
> 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.
No-one is saying that and this is really a desperate argument.
> Mailers should not
> start a script interpreter just because the sender chose a file
> extension associated with it.
Agreed. It should run if and only if the user chooses to do so.
--
ACM.
________________________________________________________
"A thing is not necessarily true because a man dies for 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 01:27:33 -0500
Les Mikesell wrote...
>
> "Curtis" <alliem@kas*spam*net.com> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > > 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.
>
> Making everyone in the world memorize bizarre and arbitrary
> name associations used by a single OS vendor is not going to
> reduce ignorance.
They however know how to use Word, their e-mail application and browse
the web. You give them way too little credit when you find it
unreasonable for them to memorise a few file extension in the name of
their systems security. In fact, they don't even have to memorize them.
Write them down and keep them close.
--
ACM.
________________________________________________________
"A thing is not necessarily true because a man dies for it."
------------------------------
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 06:29:12 GMT
"Curtis" <alliem@kas*spam*net.com> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Explain to me how that feature would prevent the joe user from
infecting
> > > his system.
> >
> > The same way that painting lines down the middle of the road keeps
> > the cars from running into each other. You don't need a concrete
> > wall, you need something to point you in the right direction.
>
> When you have effectively disabled the ability of certain files being
> executable via the e-mail clients interface you have created a brick
> wall. It's you who are proposing erecting a brick wall. :-)
No, I have no problem with letting the user choose to run anything
he wants, as long as it is really his choice. For example if you
want to type in the name of your program to run, or drag the
attachment to a program on the desktop, go ahead. What needs
to be disabled is the auto-executing something chosen by the
sender instead.
>
> > If
> > you have to make something executable, you have a pretty good
> > idea that it is going to execute.
>
> .... if the user chooses to executes it or(white line) not execute it
No - the lines should distinguish *what* you are going to execute.
Dragging the attachment to a program is going over the white line,
but that is your business if you crash.
> > If you 'open' something, you don't.
>
> Concrete wall.
There is a blind drop off a cliff here. It deserves a brick
wall.
> > 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.
>
> Actually I'm one of those advocating learning and that the problem with
> all of this lies between chair and keyboard. I've said that many times.
Then you should learn that everything you suggest is very
system-specific and not generally useful knowlege. It has
nothing to do with computing in general and is just arbitrary
associations chosen by one vendor. It is like advocating that
people learn to drive only one peculiar kind of car.
> Please show me where you think I said that people are dumb and I'll
> clarify for you. I'm not interested in being a part of the 'jumping
> hoops' team trying to find ways of protecting users who refuse to learn
> from themselves. I do admit that it's a necessary evil in a corporate
> environment where one has to give systems to these types of users to use.
> I however, don't advocate it as how it should be for me or other users
> willing to learn as they should.
Why don't you advocate systems that don't impose this sort of problem
on you in the first place? It makes no sense to talk about consistency
in handling file object and email attachments. They are inherently
different things until you have examined them and blessed them with
the right to be in the filesystem.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
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 06:30:45 GMT
"Curtis" <alliem@kas*spam*net.com> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 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.
How many can there be? How many are useful? I don't think any
two people will agree on those numbers.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
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 06:32:58 GMT
"Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8S4P5.125339$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> >
> > 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.
And long overdue.
> Now that thats out of the way, when will Linux stop allowing root exploits
> so easily?
Only if you memorize all the icons and logos for all the programs
you find at freshmeat.net.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 06:36:16 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8uipvj$ohk$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> >
> > 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?
The Microsoft source code is the obvious one, but the same
trick has likely worked everywhere Melissa and ILOVEYOU
did.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
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 01:41:39 -0500
Les Mikesell wrote...
>
> "Curtis" <alliem@kas*spam*net.com> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > 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.
>
> How many can there be? How many are useful? I don't think any
> two people will agree on those numbers.
I really should have said the converse which is a list of unsafe file
types by extension. It's really not as bad as you're making it out to be.
--
ACM.
________________________________________________________
"A thing is not necessarily true because a man dies for it."
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[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 06:45:54 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8uipuq$o9i$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> >
> > Ext2 has no more problems that NTFS - less if you ever let an
> > NTFS fill with tiny files.
>
> Fixed.
When, and what do you have to do to old systems?
> > 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."
What is wrong with getting something right? I am impressed with
what the Linux distribution packagers have been able to do in terms
of getting snapshots of thousands of unrelated projects to work
together at any point in time, though.
> 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...)
The split was necessary to remove the licensed third party components
that couldn't be released as open source. StarOffice/OpenOffice will
have the same cutover, but after that they will probably both just
continue to evolve through release points.
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 08:51:12 +0200
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:pI5P5.18642$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Curtis" <alliem@kas*spam*net.com> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Les Mikesell wrote...
> > > > Can car makers guarantee that cars will be locked?
> > >
> > > Does that justify making it difficult to use the lock? Instead of
> > > a push button you have to memorize an infinite table of filename
> > > associations that you can't see anywhere.
> >
> > Please don't blow this out of proportion. Really now, how many file
types
> > would you need to tell the user is safe in a practical working
> > environment? They'll pick up most of the rest as they go along. Treat
the
> > rest as unsafe ... simple and view them or delete them.
>
> How many can there be? How many are useful? I don't think any
> two people will agree on those numbers.
Exactly 10.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 08:52:24 +0200
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:le5P5.18562$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "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?
Check the third condition, I can make a program to do this for me in fifteen
minutes.
You are confusing ease of use for lamens and ease of use for people who
knows what they are doing.
------------------------------
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 08:53:13 +0200
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:Kt5P5.18603$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Making everyone in the world memorize bizarre and arbitrary
> name associations used by a single OS vendor is not going to
> reduce ignorance.
Only 10, and only if you are using this OS.
And it's not a single OS, it's the most popular one by far.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
