Re: Does W7 support Usenet
EMB
>
> Why I ask is that Outlook Express in no longer used.
>
> And from the looks of it Windows Live Mail has no support..
>
> I had a quick try of Live Mail, I got rid of it in a few hours utterly Total
> Crap..
>
You're a lazy, trolling, senile, obnoxious old cunt Woger, but I'll
still do you the favour of a real answer.
~misfit~
LOL! Don't hold back mate, tell him what you really think!
;-)
--
Shaun.
"Give a man a fire and he's warm for the day. But set fire to him and he's
warm for the rest of his life." Terry Pratchet, 'Jingo'.
Donchano
On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 20:06:57 +1300, Mary Hanna <ma...@yahoo.co.cn>
shouted from the highest rooftop:
>
>
>Why I ask is that Outlook Express in no longer used.
>
>And from the looks of it Windows Live Mail has no support..
>
>I had a quick try of Live Mail, I got rid of it in a few hours utterly Total
>Crap..
Since I don't use OE for anything, let alone Usenet, I can't possibly
comment.
trueone
"Mary Hanna" <ma...@yahoo.co.cn> wrote in message
news:6ulgj55vpi0d04gme...@4ax.com...
>
>
> Why I ask is that Outlook Express in no longer used.
>
> And from the looks of it Windows Live Mail has no support..
>
> I had a quick try of Live Mail, I got rid of it in a few hours utterly
> Total
> Crap..
Windows Live Mail does support usenet. I use it on a computer that came
with windows 7. I like Windows Live Mail but didnt like Windows Live
Hotmail.
geoff
>
> Since I don't use OE for anything, let alone Usenet, I can't possibly
> comment.
Um, what do you think you are posting on ? Google Groups or something ?
geoff
Donchano
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 10:27:29 +1300, "geoff" <ge...@nospampaf.co.nz>
shouted from the highest rooftop:
>Donchano wrote:
If you used a decent newsreader instead of a POS like OE you wouldn't
have to ask that question and be able to see that I'm using Fort�
Agent 5x - which is a decent newsreader.
Enkidu
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet
Cheers,
Cliff
--
The Internet is interesting in that although the nicknames may change,
the same old personalities show through.
Donchano
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 11:14:50 +1300, Enkidu <enkid...@com.cliffp.com>
shouted from the highest rooftop:
>Donchano wrote:
>> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 10:27:29 +1300, "geoff" <ge...@nospampaf.co.nz>
>> shouted from the highest rooftop:
>>
>>> Donchano wrote:
>>>
>>>> Since I don't use OE for anything, let alone Usenet, I can't possibly
>>>> comment.
>>> Um, what do you think you are posting on ? Google Groups or something ?
>>>
>>> geoff
>>
>> If you used a decent newsreader instead of a POS like OE you wouldn't
>> have to ask that question and be able to see that I'm using Fort�
>> Agent 5x - which is a decent newsreader.
> >
>Yeah, the 'news' that it reads is collectively known as 'Usenet'.
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet
I'm at a loss to know why you're bothering to tell me this since my
first post makes it abundenly clear that I'm already aware of what
Usenet is and that my resply made it clear that I already use a proper
newsreader for Usenet rather than a mail client like OE or a browser &
Google Groups.
Crash
<donc...@notachance.invalid> wrote:
>
>On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 11:14:50 +1300, Enkidu <enkid...@com.cliffp.com>
>shouted from the highest rooftop:
>
>>Donchano wrote:
>>> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 10:27:29 +1300, "geoff" <ge...@nospampaf.co.nz>
>>> shouted from the highest rooftop:
>>>
>>>> Donchano wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Since I don't use OE for anything, let alone Usenet, I can't possibly
>>>>> comment.
>>>> Um, what do you think you are posting on ? Google Groups or something ?
>>>>
>>>> geoff
>>>
>>> If you used a decent newsreader instead of a POS like OE you wouldn't
>>> have to ask that question and be able to see that I'm using Forté
>>> Agent 5x - which is a decent newsreader.
>> >
>>Yeah, the 'news' that it reads is collectively known as 'Usenet'.
>>
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet
>
>I'm at a loss to know why you're bothering to tell me this since my
>first post makes it abundenly clear that I'm already aware of what
>Usenet is and that my resply made it clear that I already use a proper
>newsreader for Usenet rather than a mail client like OE or a browser &
>Google Groups.
Don, one of your posts was:
"Since I don't use OE for anything, let alone Usenet, I can't possibly
comment."
Perhaps that was what prompted Enkido's response ;-)
--
Crash
geoff
And Forte Agent posts to, um, USENET, or somewhere else ?
I can see that from OE. Tried Forte, and pretty much all the others, and
they all miss the boat somewhere along the line, for me. I use OE through
CHOICE !
geoff
Donchano
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 12:42:58 +1300, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>
shouted from the highest rooftop:
>On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 11:39:01 +1300, Donchano
><donc...@notachance.invalid> wrote:
>
>>
>>On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 11:14:50 +1300, Enkidu <enkid...@com.cliffp.com>
>>shouted from the highest rooftop:
>>
>>>Donchano wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 10:27:29 +1300, "geoff" <ge...@nospampaf.co.nz>
>>>> shouted from the highest rooftop:
>>>>
>>>>> Donchano wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Since I don't use OE for anything, let alone Usenet, I can't possibly
>>>>>> comment.
>>>>> Um, what do you think you are posting on ? Google Groups or something ?
>>>>>
>>>>> geoff
>>>>
>>>> If you used a decent newsreader instead of a POS like OE you wouldn't
>>>> have to ask that question and be able to see that I'm using Fort�
>>>> Agent 5x - which is a decent newsreader.
>>> >
>>>Yeah, the 'news' that it reads is collectively known as 'Usenet'.
>>>
>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet
>>
>>I'm at a loss to know why you're bothering to tell me this since my
>>first post makes it abundenly clear that I'm already aware of what
>>Usenet is and that my resply made it clear that I already use a proper
>>newsreader for Usenet rather than a mail client like OE or a browser &
>>Google Groups.
>
>Don, one of your posts was:
>
>"Since I don't use OE for anything, let alone Usenet, I can't possibly
>comment."
>
>Perhaps that was what prompted Enkido's response ;-)
Perhaps Enkido should learn to read and interpret English. ;-)
Let me repeat: I do NOT use OE for *anything* - let alone USENET. And
if Enkido was using a decent newsreader instead of OE he/she/it would
have known that I was using a proper Usenet newsreader instead of a
piece of shit like Outlook Express.
geoff
>>
>
>
> OE is crap Newreader, May be Agent was over you head..?
>
> May be u missed the Boat.
Maybe. But if that's your opinion then it's a strong argument for the
contrary, cos you are totally in outer space with most of your opninions on
pretty much everything.
geoff
Donchano
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 14:45:02 +1300, "geoff" <ge...@nospampaf.co.nz>
shouted from the highest rooftop:
>Donchano wrote:
>> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 10:27:29 +1300, "geoff" <ge...@nospampaf.co.nz>
>> shouted from the highest rooftop:
>>
>>> Donchano wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Since I don't use OE for anything, let alone Usenet, I can't
>>>> possibly comment.
>>>
>>> Um, what do you think you are posting on ? Google Groups or
>>> something ?
>>>
>>> geoff
>>
>> If you used a decent newsreader instead of a POS like OE you wouldn't
>> have to ask that question and be able to see that I'm using Fort�
>> Agent 5x - which is a decent newsreader.
>
>And Forte Agent posts to, um, USENET, or somewhere else ?
Of course it does. Why would you think otherwise? If you read my
original post you'll see that I wrote that "I don't use OE for
anything, let alone Usenet." That's because OE is a crap newsreader
and a crap mail client.
>I can see that from OE. Tried Forte, and pretty much all the others, and
>they all miss the boat somewhere along the line, for me. I use OE through
>CHOICE !
More likely through ignorance ...
--
Ignorance is the coin of the masses ... and some are richer than others.
Donchano
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 23:06:47 +1300, "geoff" <ge...@nospampaf.co.nz>
shouted from the highest rooftop:
>Mary Hanna wrote:
OE is not only a crap newsreader, it's a crap mail client as well -
especially when compared to something like Mozilla Thunderbird. But it
does suit some people, simply because they don't know any better and
aren't willing to admit it.
geoff
> Of course it does. Why would you think otherwise? If you read my
> original post you'll see that I wrote that "I don't use OE for
> anything, let alone Usenet." That's because OE is a crap newsreader
> and a crap mail client.
>
>> I can see that from OE. Tried Forte, and pretty much all the others,
>> and they all miss the boat somewhere along the line, for me. I use
>> OE through CHOICE !
>
> More likely through ignorance ...
No. As I've said, I've tried 'em all. And found something unsatisfactory
about each for my (simple) requirements.
What ytou wrote seems to have been understood by some of us in the
connotation:
ie- " don't use OE for anything" AND "(I don't use) Usenet for anything".
All clear now.
geoff
Max Burke
>> Donchano wrote:
>> Of course it does. Why would you think otherwise? If you read my
>> original post you'll see that I wrote that "I don't use OE for
>> anything, let alone Usenet." That's because OE is a crap newsreader
>> and a crap mail client.
> What ytou wrote seems to have been understood by some of us in the
> connotation:
> ie- " don't use OE for anything" AND "(I don't use) Usenet for anything".
> All clear now.
Shouldn't that have been 'seems to have been *MISUNDERSTOOD* by some of
us...'
Found Images
http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/~mlvburke
Donchano
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 10:46:08 +1300, "geoff" <ge...@nospampaf.co.nz>
shouted from the highest rooftop:
>Donchano wrote:
>
>> Of course it does. Why would you think otherwise? If you read my
>> original post you'll see that I wrote that "I don't use OE for
>> anything, let alone Usenet." That's because OE is a crap newsreader
>> and a crap mail client.
>>
>>> I can see that from OE. Tried Forte, and pretty much all the others,
>>> and they all miss the boat somewhere along the line, for me. I use
>>> OE through CHOICE !
>>
>> More likely through ignorance ...
>
>No. As I've said, I've tried 'em all. And found something unsatisfactory
>about each for my (simple) requirements.
Each to his own. But have you tried Mozilla Thunderbird? It's far more
simple and user friendly than OE for both mail and Usenet.
>What ytou wrote seems to have been understood by some of us in the
>connotation:
>
>ie- " don't use OE for anything" AND "(I don't use) Usenet for anything".
>All clear now.
Speaking of Usenet, you'll notice that I've just upgraded my
newsreader to the latest Agent release. It's quite an improvement over
v5x and Fort� offers a 30 day free trial if you'd like to try it
again.
~misfit~
> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 23:06:47 +1300, "geoff" <ge...@nospampaf.co.nz>
> shouted from the highest rooftop:
>
>> Mary Hanna wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> OE is crap Newreader, May be Agent was over you head..?
>>>
>>> May be u missed the Boat.
>>
>> Maybe. But if that's your opinion then it's a strong argument for the
>> contrary, cos you are totally in outer space with most of your
>> opninions on pretty much everything.
>
> OE is not only a crap newsreader, it's a crap mail client as well -
> especially when compared to something like Mozilla Thunderbird. But it
> does suit some people, simply because they don't know any better and
> aren't willing to admit it.
Are you feeling particularly arrogant today or are you always convinced that
your way is the only way?
I use OE (for usenet only, nor email set up in it, and with OEQuotefix) out
of *informed* choice. I try a different newsreader about every three months
as folks (usually with messiah-complex's) seem convinced that to use OE is
to ask for trouble/be ignorant/be in league with Satan. However, after
trying many other newsreaders I find that OE suits me best.
It does exactly what I want and I'm happy with it (although I'll likely try
another client in the near future, if there's better [for me] then I want
it). I take offence at your insulting me for my choice.
Enkidu
Also, I don't have Outlook Express on my computer.
Enkidu
> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 10:46:08 +1300, "geoff" <ge...@nospampaf.co.nz>
> shouted from the highest rooftop:
>
>> Donchano wrote:
>>
>>> Of course it does. Why would you think otherwise? If you read my
>>> original post you'll see that I wrote that "I don't use OE for
>>> anything, let alone Usenet." That's because OE is a crap newsreader
>>> and a crap mail client.
>>>
>>>> I can see that from OE. Tried Forte, and pretty much all the others,
>>>> and they all miss the boat somewhere along the line, for me. I use
>>>> OE through CHOICE !
>>> More likely through ignorance ...
>> No. As I've said, I've tried 'em all. And found something unsatisfactory
>> about each for my (simple) requirements.
>
> Each to his own. But have you tried Mozilla Thunderbird? It's far more
> simple and user friendly than OE for both mail and Usenet.
>
>
>> What ytou wrote seems to have been understood by some of us in the
>> connotation:
>>
>> ie- " don't use OE for anything" AND "(I don't use) Usenet for anything".
>> All clear now.
>
> Speaking of Usenet, you'll notice that I've just upgraded my
> newsreader to the latest Agent release. It's quite an improvement over
> v5x and Fort� offers a 30 day free trial if you'd like to try it
> again.
>
contemplated getting the full version, but I decided to use my present
newsreader.
Donchano
Enkidu
> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 14:00:49 +1300, Enkidu wrote:
>
>>> Perhaps Enkido should learn to read and interpret English. ;-)
>
>
>
>>> Let me repeat: I do NOT use OE for *anything* - let alone USENET.
>>> And if Enkido was using a decent newsreader instead of OE
>>> he/she/it would have known that I was using a proper Usenet
>>> newsreader instead of a piece of shit like Outlook Express.
>>>
>> Perhaps you should learn to read.
>>
>> Also, I don't have Outlook Express on my computer.
>
>
> As a complete aside, do you know if there is any code shared between
> MS Outlook and Outlook Express in any of its renamed variants?
>
It depends what you mean by shared code. There may some DLLs which they
both use, similar to the way that two applications may share libraries
in Linux. But the 'base code' to coin a phrase is not shared.
>
> I know that Microsoft claims that they're separate applications of MS
> Windows, but MS also claimed in 2008 that MS Office was a new office
> productivity suite - not withstanding that MS Office was first
> released in 1989 - 20 years ago - and was just a marketing term for a
> bundled suite of applications - MS Word 4.0, MS Excel 2.20 and MS
> PowerPoint 2.01 (of which MS Word was released as early as 1984); and
> has been subsequently re-released with additions or modifications in
> intervals of between 1 & 3 years.
>
> So, MS Word is in fact a 25 year old application.
>
That's pretty good going for an application, isn't it? But I doubt that
the current MS Word has a single line of code that was in the original.
But then again, the current Lennier probably doesn't have a single atom
in common with the Lennier of ten, fifteen years ago.
Enkidu
And I don't post using "Enkido".
Donchano
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 14:11:38 +1300, Enkidu <enkid...@com.cliffp.com>
Fort� no longer offers Free Agent, but there may be a download of the
last version on one of the sites that archives discontinued software.
But a thirty day trial of the latest version should be enough to sway
you one way or another. BTW - it's a full version you get to trial and
has no restrictions.
Donchano
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 13:50:57 +1300, "~misfit~"
<sore_n...@yahoo-nospam.com.au> shouted from the highest rooftop:
If this was technical newsgroup dedicated to discussing Usenet and
newsreaders instead of being a more general and parochial newsgroup
that covers a variety of computer and IT subjects - both technical and
non-technical - you'd soon discover that your opinion is not shared by
anyone who has a knowledge of and interest in newsreaders and their
relative merits.
If you don't believe me, I challenge you to take your opinions about
using OE as your newsreader of choice to:
alt.usenet.offline-reader.forte-agent
or
alt.usenet.offline-reader
or
alt.usenet.offline-reader.forte-agent.modified
But please be prepared to be offended.
Enkidu
if it still did the Free Agent I might have recommended it to others who
wanted an alternative. But I don't think that three months is enough for
testing the full version.
Donchano
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 19:07:25 +1300, Mary Hanna <ma...@yahoo.co.cn>
shouted from the highest rooftop:
>Forte is getting a very greedy company, you need to upgrade every Year and Pay
>$30us each time, plus you have to upgrade to get the Bug fixes..
Nonsense. Try and get your facts straight.
You do NOT need to upgrade every year. Nor do you pay USD30.00 when
you do. The upgrade costs USD19.00 and, in the rare event that there
actually ARE any bug-fixes, you don't pay for them at all.
Enkidu
> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 17:28:49 +1300, Enkidu wrote:
>
>>> As a complete aside, do you know if there is any code shared
>>> between MS Outlook and Outlook Express in any of its renamed
>>> variants?
>>>
>> It depends what you mean by shared code. There may some DLLs which
>> they both use, similar to the way that two applications may share
>> libraries in Linux. But the 'base code' to coin a phrase is not
>> shared.
>
> (or not being) pulled from the same source code tree.
>
I'm not talking about the OS libraries either. Modern apps come in two
parts, the main application base and libraries of functions for the
application base to use. Other applications can be and often are written
to use the apps libraries. Some apps (eg PostgreSQL) separate the base
application and the libraries into two separate packages. Similar
applied to the Windows world - a DLL is written as support from an
application or in support of many applications.
In the Linux world many applications use the GTK API and are written to
use the GTK libraries for display purposes. I was thinking that maybe
the same applies in the Windows environment, with many apps using one or
a few display libraries.
>
> If they're not then why is Microsoft devoting all that effort to two
> different applications that people can use to do essentially the same
> thing - ie read email?
>
The reason is historical, as I understand it. There were two groups
within Microsoft creating an email client, one associated with the
browser group and one with the office system group.
Donchano
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 20:31:34 +1300, Mary Hanna <ma...@yahoo.co.cn>
shouted from the highest rooftop:
>On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 19:12:03 +1300, Donchano <donc...@notachance.invalid>
>wrote:
>Yes you doo there are Bugs in V5 I have to buy V6 to get the Bugs Fixed..
As usual you avoid addressing the very issues you yourself have raised
- ducking and diving for cover yet again. Version 6 isn't a bug-fix,
it's a major upgrade and it costs USD19.00 not the USD30.00 you
claimed. Nor do you "need to upgrade every Year."
Speaking of "doo" you are a bullshitter, Roger. Pure and simple, and
far too obvious to be taken seriously.
Happy New Year.
~misfit~
> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 13:50:57 +1300, "~misfit~"
> <sore_n...@yahoo-nospam.com.au> shouted from the highest rooftop:
>> It does exactly what I want and I'm happy with it (although I'll
>> likely try another client in the near future, if there's better [for
>> me] then I want it). I take offence at your insulting me for my
>> choice.
>
> If this was technical newsgroup dedicated to discussing Usenet and
> newsreaders instead of being a more general and parochial newsgroup
> that covers a variety of computer and IT subjects - both technical and
> non-technical - you'd soon discover that your opinion is not shared by
> anyone who has a knowledge of and interest in newsreaders and their
> relative merits.
>
> If you don't believe me, I challenge you to take your opinions about
> using OE as your newsreader of choice to:
>
> alt.usenet.offline-reader.forte-agent
> or
> alt.usenet.offline-reader
> or
> alt.usenet.offline-reader.forte-agent.modified
>
> But please be prepared to be offended.
I wouldn't post in those groups. Also I've had self-opinionated people talk
down to me over my choice of newsreader many times over the years in random
groups.
I've been using OE (with Quotefix) for usenet since Windows 95 and it hasn't
ever caused me one problem. Not one. How then am I a chump?
Donchano
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 21:32:12 +1300, "~misfit~"
<sore_n...@yahoo-nospam.com.au> shouted from the highest rooftop:
>> If this was technical newsgroup dedicated to discussing Usenet and
>> newsreaders instead of being a more general and parochial newsgroup
>> that covers a variety of computer and IT subjects - both technical and
>> non-technical - you'd soon discover that your opinion is not shared by
>> anyone who has a knowledge of and interest in newsreaders and their
>> relative merits.
>>
>> If you don't believe me, I challenge you to take your opinions about
>> using OE as your newsreader of choice to:
>>
>> alt.usenet.offline-reader.forte-agent
>> or
>> alt.usenet.offline-reader
>> or
>> alt.usenet.offline-reader.forte-agent.modified
>>
>> But please be prepared to be offended.
>
>I wouldn't post in those groups. Also I've had self-opinionated people talk
>down to me over my choice of newsreader many times over the years in random
>groups.
>
>I've been using OE (with Quotefix) for usenet since Windows 95 and it hasn't
>ever caused me one problem. Not one. How then am I a chump?
Simple: by using a OE as your newsreader of choice and not having the
balls to accept advice to the contrary from people who know more about
Usenet than you do.
geoff
> I use OE (for usenet only, nor email set up in it, and with
> OEQuotefix) out of *informed* choice. I try a different newsreader
> about every three months as folks (usually with messiah-complex's)
> seem convinced that to use OE is to ask for trouble/be ignorant/be in
> league with Satan. However, after trying many other newsreaders I
> find that OE suits me best.
> It does exactly what I want and I'm happy with it (although I'll
> likely try another client in the near future, if there's better [for
> me] then I want it). I take offence at your insulting me for my
> choice.
Jeepers. I was beginning to think it was just me !
geoff
geoff
> On 30/12/2009 10:46 a.m., geoff wrote:
>>> Donchano wrote:
>>> Of course it does. Why would you think otherwise? If you read my
>>> original post you'll see that I wrote that "I don't use OE for
>>> anything, let alone Usenet." That's because OE is a crap newsreader
>>> and a crap mail client.
>
>> What ytou wrote seems to have been understood by some of us in the
>> connotation:
>
>> ie- " don't use OE for anything" AND "(I don't use) Usenet for
>> anything". All clear now.
>
> Shouldn't that have been 'seems to have been *MISUNDERSTOOD* by some
> of us...'
'Understood' is terms of a valid interpretation, or 'misunderstood'
(evidently) wrt to what he meant to say.
geoff
geoff
>
> If you don't believe me, I challenge you to take your opinions about
> using OE as your newsreader of choice to:
>
> alt.usenet.offline-reader.forte-agent
> or
> alt.usenet.offline-reader
> or
> alt.usenet.offline-reader.forte-agent.modified
>
> But please be prepared to be offended.
Are they 'religous' like Linux and Apple adherents ?
geoff
geoff
> As a complete aside, do you know if there is any code shared between
> MS Outlook and Outlook
> Express in any of its renamed variants?
I doubt it.
geoff
geoff
> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 17:28:49 +1300, Enkidu wrote:
>
>>>
>> That's pretty good going for an application, isn't it?
>
>
>
>> But I doubt that
>> the current MS Word has a single line of code that was in the
>> original.
>
> security flaws fixed!!
They have. But the ongoing quest to add features and functionality opens
alleyways for new ones.
geoff
geoff
>
> Speaking of Usenet, you'll notice that I've just upgraded my
> newsreader to the latest Agent release. It's quite an improvement over
> v5x and Fort� offers a 30 day free trial if you'd like to try it
> again.
Well I'll try it again. But the UI would want to have improved.
All I want to do is view,sort, and watch threads. And OE does all that just
fine.
The only thing that OE does that annoys me is losing focus on a post in some
sorting scenarios.
geoff
Donchano
On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 09:19:27 +1300, "geoff" <ge...@nospampaf.co.nz>
shouted from the highest rooftop:
>Donchano wrote:
A few are. Most aren't. But none of them is as rabid as Linux and
Apple adherents or suicide bombers.
Donchano
On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 10:26:16 +1300, Mary Hanna <ma...@yahoo.co.cn>
shouted from the highest rooftop:
>On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 21:25:27 +1300, Donchano <donc...@notachance.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 20:31:34 +1300, Mary Hanna <ma...@yahoo.co.cn>
>>shouted from the highest rooftop:
>>
>>>On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 19:12:03 +1300, Donchano <donc...@notachance.invalid>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 19:07:25 +1300, Mary Hanna <ma...@yahoo.co.cn>
>>>>shouted from the highest rooftop:
>>>>
>>>>>Forte is getting a very greedy company, you need to upgrade every Year and Pay
>>>>>$30us each time, plus you have to upgrade to get the Bug fixes..
>>>>
>>>>Nonsense. Try and get your facts straight.
>>>>
>>>>You do NOT need to upgrade every year. Nor do you pay USD30.00 when
>>>>you do. The upgrade costs USD19.00 and, in the rare event that there
>>>>actually ARE any bug-fixes, you don't pay for them at all.
>>>
>>>
>>>Yes you doo there are Bugs in V5 I have to buy V6 to get the Bugs Fixed..
>>
>>As usual you avoid addressing the very issues you yourself have raised
>>- ducking and diving for cover yet again. Version 6 isn't a bug-fix,
>>it's a major upgrade and it costs USD19.00 not the USD30.00 you
>>claimed. Nor do you "need to upgrade every Year."
>
>CANT YOU READ ITS A BUG FIX LITTLE BOY.
Can't you write like an educated adult? Or support your wildly
inaccurate claims with some sort of proof?
Probably not ...
1. You said that "you need to upgrade every Year ..." That is patently
not true. You don't "need to upgrade" - it's your choice whether or
not you do. And there isn't a major upgrade every year. The upgrade
from 5x to 6x took well over a year to be released.
2. You said that Agent users have to "Pay $30us each time, plus you
have to upgrade to get the Bug fixes." That is also patently not true.
A major upgrade (eg: from 4x to 5x, or 5x to 6x) costs USD19.00.. And
even if the new version fixes some bugs, you're not paying for "bug
fixes," you're paying for a major upgrade in functionality and
features. Minor releases (bug-fixes) within a version are free.
IOW, you are full of shit, Roger (posing as Mary).
>
>>Speaking of "doo" you are a bullshitter, Roger. Pure and simple, and
>>far too obvious to be taken seriously.
>
>I HAVE THE BUGS TO PROVE IT.
I'm sure you doo ...
>>Happy New Year.
Stephen Worthington
<erik....@sd.invalid> wrote:
>I caught a glimpse of Mary Hanna <ma...@yahoo.co.cn> on Wed, 30 Dec 2009
>19:07:25 +1300, writing in nz.comp:
>
>>On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 14:27:43 +1100, Erik Vastmasd <erik....@sd.invalid>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>I caught a glimpse of Mary Hanna <ma...@yahoo.co.cn> on Mon, 28 Dec 2009
>>>20:06:57 +1300, writing in nz.comp:
>>>
>>>>Why I ask is that Outlook Express in no longer used.
>>>>
>>>>And from the looks of it Windows Live Mail has no support..
>>>>
>>>>I had a quick try of Live Mail, I got rid of it in a few hours utterly Total
>>>>Crap..
>>>
>>>I see you are using Agent 5 currently, it can be upgraded to Agent 6
>>>which works well under Windows 7.
>>
>>You do not need to Windows 7. has a Compatibility mode that works very well.
>
>Does it force you to install Agent on C: ?
>
>>Forte is getting a very greedy company, you need to upgrade every Year and Pay
>>$30us each time, plus you have to upgrade to get the Bug fixes..0
>
>Fair enough.
If you are using Agent already, you can just copy it to somewhere on a
new PC and use it from there. Agent does not use the registry, and so
is not bound up in Microsoft insanities that would prevent it from
working properly if moved. I am still using the same install location
on my Win2k partition under Vista and Win 7. That is despite the
drive letter of that drive not being C: any more. You may have to
adjust the paths on the icon you create to run it, but that is all.
There are plenty of people using ancient versions of Agent too, even
version 1.xx. As long as you do not put it under "Program Files" or
some other such protected place, it should run fine in Vista and Win
7.
~misfit~
>> it hasn't ever caused me one problem. Not one. How then am I a chump?
>
> Simple: by using a OE as your newsreader of choice and not having the
> balls to accept advice to the contrary from people who know more about
> Usenet than you do.
Are you so arrogant that you go against the old adage; 'If it isn't broken
then don't fix it'?
Re-read what I wrote. It's causing me zero problems and doing exactly what I
want it to do, reliably and with no fuss.
I'm happy to take advice when it helps me. However nothing about my usenet
experience needs fixing. It's working just fine thanks.
Not good enough for you? I'll change if and when OE doesn't do what I need
or becomes a problem. That's what logical people do rather than bow to peer
pressure, trying so hard to be an ubergeek. "It's just not cool to use OE".
Throughout this conversation you've failed to point out why I'd be better
off ditching OE, you've just told me that certain people would laugh at me
for using it. Well, I've got 'the balls' to handle that. I'm one of those
people for whom personal experience is more important than other people's
opinions.
I repeat: I've been using OE for usenet for well over 10 years with *zero*
problems. I don't need the blessing of people who I don't know enough to
make me change newsreaders. I don't have poor self-esteem and need to feel
that I belong to an elite or a clique. As you've given me no other reasons
for not using OE (and OE certainly hasn't) then I can only assume that's
your motivation.
~misfit~
LOL. No, there are lots of us. It's just that these religious nutters make
such a noise about how superior their newsreaders are that it seems like
there are lots more of them than there really are.
At least I don't use GoolgeGroups. ;-)
--
Cheers,
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> Does it force you to install Agent on C: ?
What kind of stone-age OS is it where you even need to ask?
Crash
wrote:
>Donchano wrote:
>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 14:00:49 +1300, Enkidu <enkid...@com.cliffp.com>
>> shouted from the highest rooftop:
>>
>>> Donchano wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 12:42:58 +1300, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>
>>>> shouted from the highest rooftop:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 11:39:01 +1300, Donchano
>>>>> <donc...@notachance.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 11:14:50 +1300, Enkidu <enkid...@com.cliffp.com>
>>>>>> shouted from the highest rooftop:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Donchano wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 10:27:29 +1300, "geoff" <ge...@nospampaf.co.nz>
>>>>>>>> shouted from the highest rooftop:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Donchano wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Since I don't use OE for anything, let alone Usenet, I can't possibly
>>>>>>>>>> comment.
>>>>>>>>> Um, what do you think you are posting on ? Google Groups or something ?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> geoff
>>>>>>>> If you used a decent newsreader instead of a POS like OE you wouldn't
>>>>>>>> have to ask that question and be able to see that I'm using Forté
>>>>>>>> Agent 5x - which is a decent newsreader.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yeah, the 'news' that it reads is collectively known as 'Usenet'.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet
>>>>>> I'm at a loss to know why you're bothering to tell me this since my
>>>>>> first post makes it abundenly clear that I'm already aware of what
>>>>>> Usenet is and that my resply made it clear that I already use a proper
>>>>>> newsreader for Usenet rather than a mail client like OE or a browser &
>>>>>> Google Groups.
>>>>> Don, one of your posts was:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Since I don't use OE for anything, let alone Usenet, I can't possibly
>>>>> comment."
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps that was what prompted Enkido's response ;-)
>>>> Perhaps Enkido should learn to read and interpret English. ;-)
>>>>
>>>> Let me repeat: I do NOT use OE for *anything* - let alone USENET. And
>>>> if Enkido was using a decent newsreader instead of OE he/she/it would
>>>> have known that I was using a proper Usenet newsreader instead of a
>>>> piece of shit like Outlook Express.
>>>>
>>> Perhaps you should learn to read.
>>>
>>> Also, I don't have Outlook Express on my computer.
>>
>> That's a good start.
>>
>I don't have Windows on my computer.
>
>And I don't post using "Enkido".
My typo - sorry ;-)
--
Crash
geoff
>
That is despite the
> drive letter of that drive not being C: any more. You may have to
> adjust the paths on the icon you create to run it, but that is all.
> There are plenty of people using ancient versions of Agent too, even
> version 1.xx. As long as you do not put it under "Program Files" or
> some other such protected place, it should run fine in Vista and Win
> 7.
All my MS apps run quite happily from G: with no complications or
customisation necessary, and they do use the registry. What are you trying
to say ?
geoff
Enkidu
> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 19:20:02 +1300, Enkidu wrote:
>
>> The reason is historical, as I understand it. There were two groups
>> within Microsoft creating an email client, one associated with the
>> browser group and one with the office system group.
>
>
Had. The story is that they found out and decided that the two products
did have different target audiences, but resolved to bring them closer
together.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
>> The reason is historical, as I understand it. There were two groups
>> within Microsoft creating an email client, one associated with the
>> browser group and one with the office system group.
>
> Thats as if Microsoft has very poor internal communication.
Conway’s Law: any engineering endeavour reflects the organizational
structure that produced it.
Stephen Worthington
wrote:
Try copying them to a different partition and see how well they run.
Do that with Agent and it is not bothered a bit. MS apps run on drive
letters other than C: only if they were originally installed to that
drive letter. And they only run if the registry they were installed
into is available as the current registry. My copy of Agent was
originally installed on C: when that partition was my Win2k boot
partition. The partition is now D:, and Agent runs just fine. When
my PC was broken with a dead motherboard, I put that drive in my eSATA
case and ran Agent from it on my laptop. It was E: to the laptop.
Again, no problems. Apps that use the registry simply can never do
that. And IMHO, there are few reasons why apps actually need to use
the registry at all - they just do it for some unknown reason, maybe
simply because most Windows software does. There is no rational
reason for it, and many against it. But no-one seems to ever actually
sit down and analyse what a program should do with respect to registry
use, they just assume that they should use the registry.
Last time I investigated, many years ago, the registry API calls were
hideously slow - frequent use of them could make a program's responses
lag to the point where the user really noticed, with some calls taking
large fractions of a second to complete. That may have been fixed now
(does anyone know?), but back then people were using the registry even
in the face of such drastically bad performance, for no good reason
that I can see except that MS used it and they copied MS.
IMHO, unless there is a really good reason, all programs should
install portably - able to be copied at will to any location and still
be able to run from there, including USB sticks. It really sucks to
have to reinstall software when you reinstall the OS, having to set up
all the options and plugins and dictionaries and so on from scratch
again. And there is no good reason for it at all.
Stephen Worthington
Agreed. Although I would rate that behaviour as somewhat earlier than
stone age - it is more like back before we developed brains.
geoff
> Try copying them to a different partition and see how well they run.
Whoop-di-doo. Why would I want to do that ?
geoff
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
wrote:
> And IMHO, there are few reasons why apps actually need to use
> the registry at all ..
It was supposed to be a substitute for the previous profusion of .ini files
scattered willy-nilly over the filesystem. Trouble was, it was a
technological solution to what was really a social problem: because nobody
was in a position to enforce discipline in the form of a Filesystem
Hierarchy Standard (writable systemwide config in /etc, read-only data in
/usr/share and so on), the only way to manage the filesystem clutter was to
hide all that data in a centralized database. Which then became a single
point of failure.
> Last time I investigated, many years ago, the registry API calls were
> hideously slow ...
I’m really surprised this could ever have been the case. The whole point
with a binary file format is that you can make accesses fast with multiple
indexes etc. And enforcing access through a common API allows you to manage
locking for concurrent access, as well as caching of frequently-accessed
data.
But what you’re saying is that Microsoft has managed to incorporate the
worst of both worlds: the inefficiency of, say, storing everything in XML,
with the fragility of a binary file format.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
wrote:
Most OSes around that time (1970s) used device specifiers of some sort in
their filespecs—though admittedly not usually limited to a single letter.
The notable exception was Unix, which from the beginning tried to make
everything look transparently like a single filesystem. Which, while it was
not a perfect abstraction, in retrospect looks amazingly farsighted.
Enkidu
> In message <bo8pj5tqfbpe259hd...@4ax.com>, Stephen
> Worthington wrote:
>
>> And IMHO, there are few reasons why apps actually need to use the
>> registry at all ..
>
> It was supposed to be a substitute for the previous profusion of .ini
> files scattered willy-nilly over the filesystem.
>
directories, and the driver ini files were also in a well-known
location. The real reason was that what with applications being on slow
disks and floppies that *performance* was an issue.
>
> Trouble was, it was a technological solution to what was really a
> social problem: because nobody was in a position to enforce
> discipline in the form of a Filesystem Hierarchy Standard (writable
> systemwide config in /etc, read-only data in /usr/share and so on),
>
you trying to kid?
>
> the only way to manage the filesystem clutter was to hide all that
> data in a centralized database. Which then became a single point of
> failure.
>
it \etc which would contain all ini files in a hierarchy. Since they
were all in one place someone decided to make it a JET database.
(Incidentally the JET database is the Windows equivalent of, say, BDB.
It just works and rarely errors). That was not altogether a good
decision, since it did hide the data somewhat. But it wasn't altogether
a bad one either.
Enkidu
> On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 14:34:58 +1300, Enkidu wrote:
>
>>> the only way to manage the filesystem clutter was to hide all
>>> that data in a centralized database. Which then became a single
>>> point of failure.
>>>
>> No, the simplest thing would be to have a single directory, let's
>> call it \etc which would contain all ini files in a hierarchy.
>> Since they were all in one place someone decided to make it a JET
>> database. (Incidentally the JET database is the Windows equivalent
>> of, say, BDB. It just works and rarely errors). That was not
>> altogether a good decision, since it did hide the data somewhat.
>> But it wasn't altogether a bad one either.
>
> failure for the entire OS and all applications storing stuff in the
> registry.
>
The OS, be it Linux or Windows is a SPOF! If your /etc filesystem is
borked, your system is borked. It adds no extra SPOF to the system.
>
> Microsoft recognised that it was a single point of failure. How many
> backups of the registry does MS Windows hold?
>
What do you mean by backups? So far as I know there is one *copy*, and
the registry is usually help in RAM.
>
> Despite that, how many times have you heard of accounts where the OS
> had to be completely reinstalled due to the registry having been
> corrupted?
>
Not that many.
>
> Also, if Apple is able to enforce a filesystem heirarchy standard,
> and if Linux distributions can do the same, then why is Microsoft
> unable to do that?
>
They do. Every single Windows machine with the same OS has the same file
system structure.
>
> I can't see why it would improve performance to use a registry like
> what MS used - over time it expands and becomes like Swiss cheese,
> and there is no uniform size for each record in the registry.
>
That I believe is partly a side effect of the JET database but mostly
it's due to mostly non-MS apps that don't clear up after themselves. In
any case, the JET database will compact and tidy itself to some extent.
It sounds like you are talking about a very early version. The worst
thing that you can do is use a Registry Cleaner on it.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> Yes, but how many times would /etc get trashed by simply writing to one
> document somewhere in that directory?
Never.
Enkidu
> On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 16:10:12 +1300, Enkidu wrote:
>
>>> Indeed it was a bad decision - it introduced a single point of
>>> failure for the entire OS and all applications storing stuff in
>>> the registry.
>>>
>> The OS, be it Linux or Windows is a SPOF! If your /etc filesystem
>> is borked, your system is borked. It adds no extra SPOF to the
>> system.
>
> one document somewhere in that directory?
>
writing to it. Adding a key or changing data is not that dangerous and
the shock horror warnings that are associated with doing things to the
registry are a) to scare off the fiddlers, b) overstated. I've seen
several trashed registries, and all, so far as I can remember, were due
to someone running a 'registry cleaner' application. I've seen far more
user profile corruptions than registry corruptions. Note that part of
the registry user hive is read from the user profile which could give
the impression of registry corruption.
>
>>> Microsoft recognised that it was a single point of failure. How
>>> many backups of the registry does MS Windows hold?
>>>
>> What do you mean by backups? So far as I know there is one *copy*,
>> and the registry is usually help in RAM.
>
> alterations are made to the registry where are they written to?
>
Registry changes are made to the memory copy. These are written to disc
redundantly when the system is shutdown (and possibly at other times).
>
> And what happens if that copy on disc is corrupted?
>
About the same as if your /etc gets corrupted.
Enkidu
updating a single key or data.
Allistar
I'm sure a well place command (rm -rf /etc) in /etc/init.d/bootmisc or some
other init script would deal havoc to your system when rebooted.
--
A.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Which you’d have to do deliberately.
Allistar
> In message <XbGdnTZX3cDp8d_W...@giganews.com>, Allistar
> wrote:
>
>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>>> In message <pan.2010.01...@Sweetpea.com>, Sweetpea wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yes, but how many times would /etc get trashed by simply writing to one
>>>> document somewhere in that directory?
>>>
>>> Never.
>>
>> I'm sure a well place command (rm -rf /etc) in /etc/init.d/bootmisc or
>> some other init script would deal havoc to your system when rebooted.
>
> Which you’d have to do deliberately.
Or deliberately run software that does it without you knowing (as root).
Yes.
--
A.
Simon
central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
>>> Yes, but how many times would /etc get trashed by simply writing to one
>>> document somewhere in that directory?
> >> Never.
> > I'm sure a well place command (rm -rf /etc) in /etc/init.d/bootmisc or
> > some other init script would deal havoc to your system when rebooted.
> Which you’d have to do deliberately.
So then your assertion that it could never happen, is incorrect.
Enkidu
> On Jan 5, 12:03 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
> central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
>
>>>> Yes, but how many times would /etc get trashed by simply writing to one
>>>> document somewhere in that directory?
>>>> Never.
>>> I'm sure a well place command (rm -rf /etc) in /etc/init.d/bootmisc or
>>> some other init script would deal havoc to your system when rebooted.
>
> So then your assertion that it could never happen, is incorrect.
>
rather than later.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> On Jan 5, 12:03 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
>>
>>> In message <pan.2010.01...@Sweetpea.com>, Sweetpea wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yes, but how many times would /etc get trashed by simply writing to one
>>>> document somewhere in that directory?
>>>>
>>>> Never.
>>>
>>> I'm sure a well place command (rm -rf /etc) in /etc/init.d/bootmisc or
>>> some other init script would deal havoc to your system when rebooted.
>>
>> Which you’d have to do deliberately.
>
> So then your assertion that it could never happen, is incorrect.
Please reread what exactly the assertion is about: that /etc could get
trashed by simply writing to one document somewhere in that directory.
That can never happen.
Allistar
It can, for a specifically crafted and named file.
I could create a single file, that if you put into your /etc directory with
a certain name, would hose your system.
--
A.
Allistar
> Simon wrote:
>> On Jan 5, 12:03 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
>> central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
>>
>>>>> Yes, but how many times would /etc get trashed by simply writing to
>>>>> one document somewhere in that directory?
>>>>> Never.
>>>> I'm sure a well place command (rm -rf /etc) in /etc/init.d/bootmisc or
>>>> some other init script would deal havoc to your system when rebooted.
>>> Which you’d have to do deliberately.
>>
>> So then your assertion that it could never happen, is incorrect.
> >
> Lawrence uses software RAID, so it's bound to happen to him sooner
> rather than later.
I use software RAID to as it means I am not bound to the proprietary format
of a particular hardware controller. I can take my RAID and use it without
worry on any computer running mdadm. I don't see that software RAID is any
less robust that hardware RAID. As for performance? That's possibly
another, separate issue.
--
A.
Enkidu
RAID failures, a handful, hardware RAID failures, none. And software
RAID arrays that periodically rebuild themselves, a handful of those too.
I use software RAID at home, but I'd never use it on terabyte arrays.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
To the point where I’d have to reinstall? Not possible.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> I don't see that software RAID is any less robust that hardware RAID. As
> for performance? That's possibly another, separate issue.
Don’t see why performance should be an issue at all. CPU usage for software
RAID on, say, any CPU less than 15 years old, would be minuscule.
Allistar
The one gripe I have with my RAID setup is when it rebuilds itself (which is
has done about 4 times in a couple of years, normally because of a power
failure), it slows down startup so much that is take a couple of hours to
startup. I basically have to wait until the rebuild is finished before I
can use my PC. This is an IO issue and I think there is a setting to
improve it.
--
A.
Allistar
To the point where it would empty all of your partitions and then delete
them. I think a reinstall would be required after that.
--
A.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> In message <rs2dnaHFSfkucd7W...@giganews.com>, Allistar
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I could create a single file, that if you put into your /etc directory
>>> with a certain name, would hose your system.
>>
>> To the point where I’d have to reinstall? Not possible.
>
> To the point where it would empty all of your partitions and then delete
> them. I think a reinstall would be required after that.
All right then, prove it.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> The one gripe I have with my RAID setup is when it rebuilds itself (which
> is has done about 4 times in a couple of years, normally because of a
> power failure), it slows down startup so much that is take a couple of
> hours to startup.
I have had first-hand experience of two disk failures on software RAID
setups, and in both cases the rebuild made no perceptible difference to
system responsiveness.
Allistar
> In message <tZKdne9MgZBbodnW...@giganews.com>, Allistar
> wrote:
>
>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>>> In message <rs2dnaHFSfkucd7W...@giganews.com>, Allistar
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I could create a single file, that if you put into your /etc directory
>>>> with a certain name, would hose your system.
>>>
>>> To the point where I’d have to reinstall? Not possible.
>>
>> To the point where it would empty all of your partitions and then delete
>> them. I think a reinstall would be required after that.
>
> All right then, prove it.
It is trivial for a script running as root to delete all files. It is also
easy for such a script to delete partitions. Make a script which deletes
all files in a particular directory then get that script to execute when
the computer starts up (by putting it in place of an /etc/init.d script
that is run on boot).
--
A.
Allistar
> fstab
While a specifically crafted fstab would prevent a system from booting, it
wouldn't hose it as you could always replace it after booting up with a
live CD or USB drive.
--
A.
geoff
>
> To the point where I'd have to reinstall? Not possible.
That must be a disppointment. Liniots seem to relish 'simple' reinstalls
and/ and recompiles at every opportunity !
geoff
Allistar
> It would "hose" it as it wouldn't be able to boot and would need to be
> repaired.
"Hose" to me means destroy all data, not simply prevent booting. fstab isn't
an executable (or script interpreted by an executable). If you were to be
really malicious you'd use a script, in which you could do pretty much
anything you like so long as it's running as root.
--
A.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> In message <tZKdne9MgZBbodnW...@giganews.com>, Allistar
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>
>>>> In message <rs2dnaHFSfkucd7W...@giganews.com>, Allistar
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I could create a single file, that if you put into your /etc directory
>>>>> with a certain name, would hose your system.
>>>>
>>>> To the point where I’d have to reinstall? Not possible.
>>>
>>> To the point where it would empty all of your partitions and then delete
>>> them. I think a reinstall would be required after that.
>>
>> All right then, prove it.
>
> It is trivial for a script running as root to delete all files.
a) How would you write such a script into /etc without root access?
b) How would you get the system to execute it?
Allistar
> In message <ydudnZCDIqeSxdnW...@giganews.com>, Allistar
> wrote:
>
>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>>> In message <tZKdne9MgZBbodnW...@giganews.com>, Allistar
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In message <rs2dnaHFSfkucd7W...@giganews.com>, Allistar
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I could create a single file, that if you put into your /etc
>>>>>> directory with a certain name, would hose your system.
>>>>>
>>>>> To the point where I’d have to reinstall? Not possible.
>>>>
>>>> To the point where it would empty all of your partitions and then
>>>> delete them. I think a reinstall would be required after that.
>>>
>>> All right then, prove it.
>>
>> It is trivial for a script running as root to delete all files.
>
> a) How would you write such a script into /etc without root access?
The original assertion you made is that you cannot hose a system by putting
a single file into /etc. If that's the criteria for this thought
experiment, then that is the means of getting the file in there.
> b) How would you get the system to execute it?
By making it a file that the system already executes, such as something
in /etc/init.d or one of the various startup scripts.
--
A.
Enkidu
> In message <tZKdne9MgZBbodnW...@giganews.com>, Allistar wrote:
>
>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>>> In message <rs2dnaHFSfkucd7W...@giganews.com>, Allistar
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I could create a single file, that if you put into your /etc directory
>>>> with a certain name, would hose your system.
>>> To the point where I’d have to reinstall? Not possible.
>> To the point where it would empty all of your partitions and then delete
>> them. I think a reinstall would be required after that.
>
> All right then, prove it.
>
are using that, all of alternatives, if you use that, all your
Gnome/KDE/whatever DM, lvm, modules, network stuff, resolv.conf,
nssswitch.conf. PAM, ssh, terminfo, all the X stuff.
Well, I guess you could fix all those by hard, but it would be a lot
quicker to reinstall. Unless, as you no doubt will claim, you have a
backup on the hard disk to restore from.
Enkidu
slows a system down, but it shouldn't make it unusable. Unless your RAID
array has more than one IDE disk on a IDE channel.