Linux-Advocacy Digest #222, Volume #30 Tue, 14 Nov 00 00:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: The Sixth Sense ("Bruce Schuck")
Re: The Sixth Sense ("Bruce Schuck")
Re: The Sixth Sense ("Bruce Schuck")
Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays. ("Bruce Schuck")
Re: Of course, there is a down side... (Gary Hallock)
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Of course, there is a down side... (Gary Hallock)
Re: Of course, there is a down side... (Gary Hallock)
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? (sfcybear)
Re: Of course, there is a down side... (Gary Hallock)
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? (Big Daddy)
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? (Bob Lyday)
Re: Linux + KDE2 = 8) ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Same old Linux..Nothing new here... (Gary Hallock)
Re: Lets try serious advocacy/discussion. ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Lets try serious advocacy/discussion. ("Les Mikesell")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Les Mikesell")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Pascal Haakmat)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (Pascal Haakmat)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 22:55:45 -0500
"Colin R. Day" wrote:
>
> Christopher Smith wrote:
>
> > > 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 ?
> >
>
> Rather funny, in almost three years of running Linux, I have never accidentally
>
> removed a file.
In 17 years of running unix, I've only accidentally removed files twice.
In 6 years of playing with LoseDOS, I've suffered catastrophic data
losses on numberous occasions.
>
> Colin Day
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
http://directedfire.com/greatgungiveaway/directedfire.referrer.fcgi?2632
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 20:01:44 -0800
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:QhMP5.19786$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:iDJP5.126087$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > >
> > > > Nothing on *nix platform comes even close
> > > > in the ease of use and the selection of languages.
> > >
> > > Huh? On unix if my executable file starts with:
> > > #!/usr/bin/perl
> > > it will be executed by perl without the user needing
> > > to know what interpreter is running. Or it can say:
> > > #!/bin/sh
> > > for a shell script, or
> > > #!/usr/bin/perl -w
> > > to run with perl but with the warning flag set. How
> > > do you allow any file to specify it's own interpreter
> > > and command line flags
> >
> > Create a shortcut with any command line flags you want in windows.
> >
> > Easy. Intuitive.
>
> Every script needs a shortcut? That's bad.
Scripts don't NEED shortcuts.
The shortcut feature is wonderful. It allows the logical grouping of
executables and scripts and ducments.
>
> > Set your own icon if you want to make it easier to remember.
>
> I don't want icons, I want to connect them with pipes so
> each one can be used as a component of another.
So what do you do? Type ls at the comand prompt to search for you the script
you want to run and then type in the name of the script with the command
line switches every time?
Sounds down right archaic.
>
> > Put it on the desktop if you want.
> > Or in the quick launch toolbar so its always visible.>
> > In Win2k you can also set the security.
>
> Is there something unique here?
Just explaining the wonderful qualities of Win2k.
>
> > And you can distribute it to every user of the machine by dropping it in
> > the"All Users" folder.
>
> Yech - you mean gunk shows up on your desktop whether you want
> it or not?
No. Usable programs show up for other users when Administrators want it too.
Great feature. Doesn't Linux have that one? Pity.
>
> > With Win2K you can also run it as a different user by checking a flag
and
> > specifying the userid and password.
> >
> > Powerful stuff.
>
> None of that needs special case handling under unix/linux.
Features. Lots of features in Win2k. Great OS. Much more advanced than
Linux!
>
> > Coming soon to the Windows 9x crowd as Whistler. Linux? Whats a Linux?
Oh
> > yeah. That OS for geeks that no one ever used on the desktop.
>
> The OS for people who think that a hundred is not a large number of
> programs. Or maybe a thousand - but I don't want to have to make a
> shortcut for each one.
How do you list them and find them? ls ? Slow and archaic. How do you group
them logically by project or function and store them a different way?
Do you have a text file with a thousand script names?
Sounds positively archaic.
------------------------------
From: "Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 20:03:23 -0800
"Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Bruce Schuck wrote:
> >
> > "Glitch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > The only reasonable tool
> > > > > > > I've found to deal with remote windows is VNC installed as a
> > service
> > > > > > > because you can run the java client in any browser if you
don't
> > happen
> > > > > > > to have the client loaded wherever you are.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > WTS has a browser-based ActiveX control client.
> > > > >
> > > > > I take it that is the Microsoft's pretense of portability. Just
> > > > > as warped as usual.
> > > >
> > > > Sounds pretty portable to me. Any machine with IE on it can be used
to
> > > > administer a Win2K server.
> > >
> > > I'm assuming an admin could also use Netscape if he so wished to
> > > administer a win2k server or is Netscape not included in Microsoft's
Ten
> > > Commandments? "Thou shall not have no other browser before IE"
> >
> > Why would you want to use a slow buggy piece of crap like Netscape?
>
> Because IE is as slow as Netscape,
Much much faster. Really, really snappy.
> slightly more crappy then
> Netscape, slightly more buggy then Netscape,
Netscape is a joke.
> and moreover it
> is absolutely and intrinsically unsafe. Didn't I LOVE YOU
> teach anything?
Not to run attachments. A knew that a long time ago. Nothing to do with IE
though.
------------------------------
From: "Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 20:04:04 -0800
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Jake Taense wrote:
> >
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Giuliano Colla
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >Because IE is as slow as Netscape, slightly more crappy then
> > >Netscape, slightly more buggy then Netscape, and moreover it
> > >is absolutely and intrinsically unsafe. Didn't I LOVE YOU
> > >teach anything?
> >
> > Wasn't that a virus that took advantage of a problem with OE, not IE?
> >
> > I could be wrong.
>
> it exploited the same design flaw in both programs.
>
>
> >
> > But in my experience, Netscape is both slower and buggier than IE in any
> > version over 4.0 on either side.
> >
> > Netscape also routinely crashes on my linux box.
>
> better a crash than an ILOVEYOU attack.
Aaron is a Sun "Engineer". He prefers machines that crash.
------------------------------
From: "Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays.
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 20:10:25 -0800
"Roberto Alsina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8ubsa6$nd7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <8u8vle$4ns$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > "Roberto Alsina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8u6epd$7qu$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > And anyway, you are ignoring what I *did* write. Even if the windows
> > > sources survive, almost all knowledge about said sources is
> concentrated
> > > in Redmond. I doubt that if all that knowledge disappeared, the
> > > remainder would be enough to keep developing windows further, at
> least
> > > without a very long hiatus.
> >
> > 90% of the desktop market is a good enough reason, I would imagine.
>
> Sure, never claimed reasons were lacking.
>
> > And according to OSS supporters, the hiatus wouldn't be felt, would
> it?
> > Since MS takes so long to release something anyway.
>
> Well, if you were told tomorrow that the next version of windows would
> come in 2006, and be done by nearly none of the people that wrote the
> current one, after they endure extensive training into learning how to
> tangle with the 20+ millions of code in the product, how much of your
> business would you bet on it?
The next version of Windows will be out in 2001. It will merge the best of
Win2K and the best consumer aspects of Windows Me. And programmers from both
versions are working on it.
On the other hand, the next version of Linux (after the long delayed 2.4 is
finally released sometime in the next 6 months) is 3 or 4 years away. And
will be written by who knows. (I'm assuming it will be the Linux programmers
who can't get a full-time job).
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 23:11:40 -0500
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
Chad Myers wrote:
> None of which are near completion, would be considered anywhere near stable
> and go completely against the grain of *nix style "security".
>
> It's a hack-job on an antiquated and inadequate security model. Several Unix
> vendors have implemented DAC on their platforms, but only for Government
> jobs since the DOD requires it, but it's still a hack-job there, as well.
>
> It's the design philosophy that counts, not the attempts of individuals
> to correct the original poor design that matters.
>
Then how is it that I use ACLs on Linux every day. And those ACLs are shared with
AIX.
Gary
------------------------------
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: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 04:14:11 GMT
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:BlSP5.11793$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > I don't have a NT4 around that I could experiment with, and this problem
> > doesn't affect 2000.
>
>
> Just for a little clarification, I believe the problems you guys
> are talking about was a bug in NTFS4 (not NTFS5) where if you had over
> 5 MILLION (not hundred thousand) files you would start running into
> problems.
I've forgotten the details I found at the time, but I thought it was more
like that would be the theoretically maximum number for the largest
drive NTFS could handle, but what it actually did was
allocate some arbitrary maximum size that the MFT should be
when you formatted (probably as the ratio of your disk size to the
theoretical max size...), and when it grew to this size you were
fried.
> IIRC, the problem was fixed in SP5 on NTFS4 partitions, or if you had
> an NTFS5 partition, the problem wasn't there in the first place.
Since they didn't tell me to expect it in the first place I'm not
too inclined to believe it when they say not to expect it.
> Note that you need Win2K to create the NTFS5 partition and that
> NT4 cannot make NTFS5 partitions.
Well I'm glad I had some other filesystem that worked fine these last
couple of years and don't see much reason to give NTFS another chance.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 23:16:39 -0500
From: Gary Hallock <[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:
> "Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > WINE can't handle notepad to perfection, you expect it to do more
> complex
> > > things?
> >
> > Why not? Wine handles Lotus Notes quite well.
>
> Because notepad is about as simple as application can get and still be
> useful?
And Notepad works fine. Or at least it did last time I tried it. I
haven't tried it lately since I have absolutely no need for such a
primitive editor on Linux. This, plus the fact that Lotus Notes ( a
much more complex application that notepad) works fine also tells me
that this whole discussion is based on bad data.
Gary
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 23:17:42 -0500
From: Gary Hallock <[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:
>
> Editting small text files in not useful?
> Why don't you tell that to the *nix world? They would heartily disagree,
> it's a large part of what an *nix admin does.
No, editing small text files on Linux with notepad is not useful.
Gary
------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 04:10:26 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
tklso@pklif <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bob says...
> >
> >http://uptime.netcraft.com/today/top.avg.html
> >
> >Note that in this survey of the longest uptimes, every single one of
> >them is running some form of Unix. Not even one single one is
running
> >any Microsoft OS, even Windows 2000.
>
> this is not fair.
>
> windows OS's are designed for ease of use and not for staying up
longest.
But all the NT people were saying how stable it was....Were they all
lies???? Sorry, win98 was for ease of use NT was suposed to be server
software that means it SHOULD be stable.
>
> you really can't have it both ways. If you want a pretty looking OS,
Right but a server software is suposed to be stable so MS made the wrong
choice for server software
> you have to put up with a crash here and there. If you want a solid
On a desk top, perhaps but not as a server. I guess it takes MS's so
called server OS to make a half way reasonable desktop OS.
> OS like unix, you have to put up with not having all those pretty
windows
> on the desktop.
>
> it is a matter of choice. that is why unix is used for servers, and
windows
> for the desktop. desktop system do not have to stay up too long,
Yeah, but that work you loose, the game you were about ready to win....
bang a crash!
unlike
> servers.
>
Like I said NT was MS's server software!
I find it funny how MS users were saying how stable NT was now they are
saying that stability is not important! THanks for the laugh.
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 23:19:08 -0500
From: Gary Hallock <[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:
> "Goldhammer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
> > Notepad is not useful.
>
> How so and why?
Why use a junky editor such as notepad on Linux when there are so many better
editors available?
Gary
------------------------------
From: Big Daddy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 22:30:04 -0600
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Have you seen the new OS X beta now that is easy, pretty, and more stable than
Win2K even though its beta.
"tklso@pklif" wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bob says...
> >
> >http://uptime.netcraft.com/today/top.avg.html
> >
> >Note that in this survey of the longest uptimes, every single one of
> >them is running some form of Unix. Not even one single one is running
> >any Microsoft OS, even Windows 2000.
>
> this is not fair.
>
> windows OS's are designed for ease of use and not for staying up longest.
>
> you really can't have it both ways. If you want a pretty looking OS,
> you have to put up with a crash here and there. If you want a solid
> OS like unix, you have to put up with not having all those pretty windows
> on the desktop.
>
> it is a matter of choice. that is why unix is used for servers, and windows
> for the desktop. desktop system do not have to stay up too long, unlike
> servers.
>
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 20:33:30 -0800
From: Bob Lyday <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
Jacques Guy wrote:
>
> Marty wrote:
>
> > Allow me to interject some personal experience.
> >
> > My OS/2 emulation web site is hosted by the kind folks at VintageGaming.com.
> > They gave me unlimited space and my own domain name. They were running on a
> > reliable old Solaris box which never gave me one ounce of trouble.
> >
> > Recently, they decided it would be a great idea to take this smoothly working
> > setup and install Win2K as the web server in its place. I now had to change
> > my content in two ways:
> >
> > 1. My index.html page had to become default.htm (requiring changes in all
> > of the sub-pages that link back to this page)
> > 2. All of the CGI stuff I was using had to be canned, rebuilt, or replaced
> >
> > If that was the extent of the trouble, it would have been inconvenient, but
> > tolerable, but it wasn't. Take a look now at where
> > http://emuos2.vintagegaming.com is now. Or even
> > http://www.vintagegaming.com. Can't reach it, can you? It's been like this
> > on and off for 2 weeks. It has been down more than it has been up by a ratio
> > of 100:1.
>
> I tried both URLs and, in both cases, I got timed out.
Me too. There was also a chart on the same site showing how Starbucks
was rebooting its NT server on a daily basis. Just think how much
money you would have lost if you were a business, Marty.
--
Bob
"Nigeria is a continent." "Trade with Mexico is not foreign trade."
"Is our children learning?" "People from Greece are called
Grecians." "Social Security is not a federal program." George Bush,
Einsteinian genius, ex-con, ex-cokehead, ex-adulterer, ex-drunk and
popularly defeated Presidential candidate, demonstrating his stunning
intellectual breadth and encyclopedic knowledge.
Remove "diespammersdie" to reply.
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux + KDE2 = 8)
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 04:39:32 GMT
"Pete Goodwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8up9e0$62k$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi) wrote:
>
> > Actually, Linux dialup tools like Kppp allow you to assign
> > DNS configuration on a per-entry basis, and edit resolv.conf on the
> > fly.
>
> I don't remember seeing anything in Linux Mandrake 7.2 setup about this.
> Got some reading to do!
Just punch the internet setup button in drakconf. The ppp setup does
let you configure dns servers per connection. However, note that
while this might be right for a single machine with no connection
other than the modem, it probably is not for a machine also providing
local services for other hosts on a private network. If your other
local machines don't have registered IP addresses and DNS names,
when you switch to the remote DNS you won't see the local names.
A local nameserver configured as primary for your machines and
a slave to your ISP for everything else takes care of the problem.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 23:38:48 -0500
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Same old Linux..Nothing new here...
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
> If I'm still alive if / when that happens, I'm 40 now, I'd like to be
> one of the first to experience it.
>
>
Your 40??? You act like a 5 year old.
Gary
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Lets try serious advocacy/discussion.
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 04:43:01 GMT
"Tore Lund" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Under
> > > Windows best thing would be install new disk with the software that
> > > comes with it (partitioning program) and re-install from the image CD
> > > included with the machine.
> >
> > Then it could take weeks to install all your software on top of that.
>
> This is completely trivial to do under Windows 95/98 (not sure about
> Win2K). You have your old disk in C: and a new, formatted disk in D:.
> Make sure all files are visible in Windows Explorer, then copy and paste
> everything EXCEPT c:\windows\win386.swp to the new disk. That's it.
> You can now swap disks, move jumpers and boot again.
>
> (Note: This is a VERY brief description for people who understand what
> they are doing. But it really is that simple...)
And you just ignore all those "can't open" file errors during such a
copy and hope it isn't anything you need? Anything running or
open will fail to copy.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Lets try serious advocacy/discussion.
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 04:52:38 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> So we can now assume you've run out of points to debate so now you
> attack. You must be up to page 99 out of 100 in the "How to Advocate
> Linux" handbook.
>
> claire
>
>
> On Mon, 13 Nov 2000 04:20:03 GMT, "Les Mikesell"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
Since you deleted all the references to the previous article I can only
assume you took my question about your motive for posting your
anti-linux opinions in a linux advocacy newsgroup as an attack.
Do you have some reason to hide your motivation?
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: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 04:58:17 GMT
"Curtis" <alliem@kas*spam*net.com> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ayende Rahien wrote...
> > > > However, it is not, and never was necessary to consider email
> > > > attachments to be identical to files.
> > >
> > > Why not? Why confuse the joe user with a new concept. Treat it as a
file.
> > > He already knows what a file is. :-)
> >
> > Hopefully.
> > Unfortantely, that isn't always true.
>
> If even this is not true, then my question of 'why bring another concept
> to confuse the joe user' becomes even more pertinent. He hasn't even
> assimilated the concept of a file, much less the concept of an e-mail
> attachments and what they really represent.
If he doesn't have any concept of a file and the difference between
his trusted files and an email attachment it is because it is hidden
from him. People working in DOS before windows came around
really had no trouble with the concept of files and opening them
with applications at all. Now they have no idea where things
go when they save them and can't even figure out how to put a
copy on a floppy.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pascal Haakmat)
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: 14 Nov 2000 04:58:42 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Curtis wrote:
>Christopher Smith wrote...
>> > No, it is only hidden in Outlook.
>>
>> Not at all. Extensions, filenames, icons, save to disk and check yourself.
>
>I personally don't use Outlook but for other reasons. Windows has the
>incredibly brain dead feature which I immediately turn off when I get my
>hands on any Windows system and that is to make filename extensions
>invisible. Isn't this part of the problem? I don't know if this setting
>affects how Outlook displays it's attachments because if it does and is
>enabled, the user will not be able to tell what type of file it is.
It's the combination of of features like this which kill or obfuscate
security (that is, confidentiality) on a Windows system. The hiding of
filename extensions, the single-click open, the open-is-execute feature, the
VB scripting feature (which turns documents into executables), the
obligatory recently used documents feature, the auto-complete feature -- all
of them turned on by default.
Turning all these features off is only feasible if you are in complete
control of the machines involved. If you have to work on many machines and
cannot completely control every single one of them, then it is better to
just to leave the defaults in place -- otherwise you have to change your
working habits every time you change machines.
This consistency across machines is where Unix really shines. The Windows
Registry doesn't help to distribute settings across machines, either.
>Be that as it may, Outlook is not the problem with machines getting
>infected with viruses contracted via e-mail. The problem lies between
>chair and keyboard. IGNORANCE, STUPIDITY, COMPLACENCY. You name it.
Nobody can know everything about anything. That is why people buy software
instead of writing it themselves.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pascal Haakmat)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes
Date: 14 Nov 2000 05:00:07 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>> And all the property-rights absolutists would have defended slavery
>> on the ground that ordering the slaves freed would have set a dangerous
>> precedent in the form of the government overruling property claims.
>
>What part of "PEOPLE are not property" do you not understand?
I don't think slaves were ever considered people.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
