Bill Gates sucks
Phillip Tompkins Jr
Mikhail Teterin wrote:
>
> Sean C. Wattles
> announced on 25 Apr :
> =Sounds lke some people are just jealous of a multi-billionaire :)
>
> Notably, this was _the only_ argument for Microsoft. As technical
> as Microsoft's users get...
>
> -- What is the biggest advantage of Microsoft product?
> -- It is compatible with another Microsoft product!
>
> -mi
>
> --
> "Windows for dummies"Well maybe Billy boy does... but hey... I have no problem with
Microsoft products... they seem to work fine for me... are you to dumm
to figure them out? They are really made for idiots.... Is that why
you had to get a quote out of a book? I see... couldn't think of
anything original.... That's ok... Let's see you write a better program
than Microsoft... Ever tried calling tech support for an MS product? I
always get right through (well the 3 times that I have ever called)..
And they fixed the problem in under 10 minutes!!! Sounds like your up
for a challenge of writing a better product... if you can't well don't
dis on Microsoft because atleast their products work better than the
ones you have written...
Foo Chuan Herng
Please stop saying Bill Gates suck. Bill Gates is great since he brought
afordability to computer and softwares. Whether his program is buggy or
not is another point. At least all other software companies together
with hardware companies are force into a price war whcih benefits us
endusers. If IBM or APPLE are still kings and Bill Gates was never
borned, I believe that most people down here won't even know what email
or internet is, even if they know, they may never touch it since it will
be too expensive.
--
******* FOO CHUAN HERNG *******
******** LIVE WELL LOVE DEEP ********
** HTTP://HOME.PACIFIC.NET.SG/~GAUNTLET **
******************************************
Thathachari
On Thu, 09 May 1996 19:37:11 +0900, Foo Chuan Herng
<Gaun...@mailhost.net> wrote:
>Please stop saying Bill Gates suck. Bill Gates is great since he brought
>afordability to computer and softwares. Whether his program is buggy or
kidding. Heard of Linux, Free BSD, GNU? Freeware and sharware are
what makes my m/c tick. The Microsoft OS is usually a worthless
appendage.
>not is another point. At least all other software companies together
>with hardware companies are force into a price war whcih benefits us
>endusers. If IBM or APPLE are still kings and Bill Gates was never
>borned, I believe that most people down here won't even know what email
>or internet is, even if they know, they may never touch it since it will
>be too expensive.
How is Bill Gates are Microsoft responsible for "popularising" the
internet. If I understand the 'net market right it has been hot for
the past year and half. And Microsloth got into significant Internet
business only with the launch of Windoze '95. Trumpet Winsock (which
initially was freeware) and WS-FTP (freeware) and NCSA Telnet are THE
reasons for the "popularization" of the net.
Thaths
Jagrulz1
Bill Gates "popularized the internet"? I've heard of revisionist history
but that is just ridiculous. In fact, I have never seen a more naive
statement posted anywhere on usenet. Today, anyone who has ever opened a
book or read a newspaper should know that Netscape has a commanding share
of the internet browser market. They should also know that Microsoft was
caught off guard by the explosion of the world wide web in 1994 and early
1995. Not until late 1995 did Microsoft even introduce products that were
considered competitive.
Worse yet, none of the major technologies that comprise the World Wide
Web came from Microsoft. Microsoft didn't define TCP/IP. They didn't
create the first browsers. They didn't define the HTML standard. They
had nothing to do with the creation of JAVA. Etc... Today they are in a
weak position. They have a handful of closed technologies that are not
widely perceived as even internet players yet alone standards. Yet
through what I see as primarily wasted R&D dollars Microsoft is trying to
push its niche technologies such as internet OLE ("ActiveX") from a
market share position that at best could be called niche and at worst
might be characterized as nonexistent (0 to 5% depending on what MS
internet product you look at) to become new internet standards. The
Elephant is assuming that by stomping around and wailing loudly it can
pulverize new standards out of the ether. I'm sorry, Bill. It's not
happening. You should either embrace existing standards and extend them
or get out of this market entirely. Nobody wants kludgey closed windows
standards stinking up the world wide web.
Now to Microsoft's credit, they are at least supporting the real standards
like Java, Real Audio, and Netscape's HTML extensions. At least they see
that without those Microsoft's survival in the internet market would be
impossible.. Explorer 2.0 would have a 0% market share had it not
incorporated at least some of the real net standards. At best, though,
Explorer's 5% share can be described as niche. 50% at a minimum is
probably required to establish new standards. 70% would be better. In
that respect, Netscape is totally in the driver's seat with respect to new
HTML tags, what might replace JAVA, etc... Microsoft has enough share to
perhaps voice an opinion or demonstrate something new.. analagous perhaps
not to someone in the passenger seat of a car but, rather, as someone
seated in the back row of a bus talking in a normal voice to the driver at
the front. That driver may listen but he certainly isn't compelled to do
so.
Suddenly, as with MSN v/ AOL, Microsoft is the "little guy"
(figuratively). They can no longer introduce a kludge product or weakly
engineered closed standard and take market share simply because they
dominate the PC OS. Hence, for the first time in perhaps a decade
Microsoft is now entering a market where they must fight free and open
competition. It is in that context where we shall see whether they are a
dinosaur. Bill Gates himself has said that technology companies that
dominate for a 20 year period seldom control the next 20 years. Wise
advice to consider for anyone assuming that Microsoft can rise from a 5%
market share and dog slow product development (relative to all these new
lean startups) to claim any significant stake in the emerging vastness of
the internet landscape. Microsoft will have a strong role to play in PC
OS's where they dominate and in business software but don't look for them
to control either online services or the internet.
JaGRUlZoNE
Foo Chuan Herng
Jagrulz1 wrote:
> Bill Gates "popularized the internet"? I've heard of revisionist history
> but that is just ridiculous. In fact, I have never seen a more naive
> statement posted anywhere on usenet. Today, anyone who has ever opened a
> book or read a newspaper should know that Netscape has a commanding share
I did not say Bill Gates was the only one. He did and he is also doing
it now (by integrating internet into future OS and apps). History is in
the making. Can you say Bill completely did nothing to popularize
internet?
> of the internet browser market. They should also know that Microsoft was
> caught off guard by the explosion of the world wide web in 1994 and early
> 1995. Not until late 1995 did Microsoft even introduce products that were
> considered competitive.
It is not only Microsoft was caught off guard. Apple and IBM were also
caught off guard. Both Mac and Os/2 were not shipped in with browsers.
> Worse yet, none of the major technologies that comprise the World Wide
> Web came from Microsoft. Microsoft didn't define TCP/IP. They didn't
> create the first browsers. They didn't define the HTML standard. They
> had nothing to do with the creation of JAVA. Etc... Today they are in a
> weak position. They have a handful of closed technologies that are not
> widely perceived as even internet players yet alone standards. Yet
> through what I see as primarily wasted R&D dollars Microsoft is trying to
Hehe...What a naive statement. Compaq and many other clones do not have
much technology. Many clones with good sale figures don't even
manufacture parts themselves. So I can assume that they must be in a
weak position.
> push its niche technologies such as internet OLE ("ActiveX") from a
> market share position that at best could be called niche and at worst
> might be characterized as nonexistent (0 to 5% depending on what MS
ActiveX is still very new. Wait and see...
> internet product you look at) to become new internet standards. The
> Elephant is assuming that by stomping around and wailing loudly it can
> pulverize new standards out of the ether. I'm sorry, Bill. It's not
> happening. You should either embrace existing standards and extend them
> or get out of this market entirely. Nobody wants kludgey closed windows
> standards stinking up the world wide web.
This "Nobody" must be some frustrated Mac, OS/2 or some Unix fanatics.
> Now to Microsoft's credit, they are at least supporting the real standards
> like Java, Real Audio, and Netscape's HTML extensions. At least they see
> that without those Microsoft's survival in the internet market would be
> impossible.. Explorer 2.0 would have a 0% market share had it not
> incorporated at least some of the real net standards. At best, though,
> Explorer's 5% share can be described as niche. 50% at a minimum is
> probably required to establish new standards. 70% would be better. In
> that respect, Netscape is totally in the driver's seat with respect to new
> HTML tags, what might replace JAVA, etc... Microsoft has enough share to
> perhaps voice an opinion or demonstrate something new.. analagous perhaps
> not to someone in the passenger seat of a car but, rather, as someone
> seated in the back row of a bus talking in a normal voice to the driver at
> the front. That driver may listen but he certainly isn't compelled to do
> so.
The journey is still far ahead.
> Suddenly, as with MSN v/ AOL, Microsoft is the "little guy"
> (figuratively). They can no longer introduce a kludge product or weakly
Indeed AOL has agreed to use Microsoft's browser. So far so good for
Netscape.
> engineered closed standard and take market share simply because they
> dominate the PC OS. Hence, for the first time in perhaps a decade
> Microsoft is now entering a market where they must fight free and open
> competition. It is in that context where we shall see whether they are a
> dinosaur. Bill Gates himself has said that technology companies that
> dominate for a 20 year period seldom control the next 20 years. Wise
> advice to consider for anyone assuming that Microsoft can rise from a 5%
> market share and dog slow product development (relative to all these new
> lean startups) to claim any significant stake in the emerging vastness of
> the internet landscape. Microsoft will have a strong role to play in PC
> OS's where they dominate and in business software but don't look for them
> to control either online services or the internet.
Market share of OS is still much more significant than browser market
share. Netscape will always be seen as a tiny competitor compared to
Microsoft. With the vast OS and apps market share, Microsoft is still
anytime a dangerous foe.
It is true Internet is still a battle ground that's just a few days old.
With Microsoft trying to integrate everything into internet, the shape
of things to come will be from Microsoft, not Netscape. Does Netscape
sells os,wordproc, spreadsheet.......? The answer is NO. Once MS comes
out with these products, developers and users will follow in like little
dogs. Keep your wishful thinking.
--
******* FOO CHUAN HERNG *******
******** LIVE WELL LOVE DEEP ********
** http://home.pacific.net.sg/~gauntlet **
******************************************
Tim O'Neil
Foo Chuan Herng wrote:
>
> Jagrulz1 wrote:
>
> > Bill Gates "popularized the internet"? I've heard of revisionist history
> > but that is just ridiculous. In fact, I have never seen a more naive
> > statement posted anywhere on usenet. Today, anyone who has ever opened a
> > book or read a newspaper should know that Netscape has a commanding share
>
> I did not say Bill Gates was the only one. He did and he is also doing
> it now (by integrating internet into future OS and apps). History is in
> the making. Can you say Bill completely did nothing to popularize
> internet?
Why infact, yes. Microsoft has done as little as possible to popularize it. What
do you think the MSN was? A happy attempt to expand on the cornerstone that is
the internet, or the impotent attempt of a paranoid buisness giant to cash in on
something they didn't think of?
> > of the internet browser market. They should also know that Microsoft was
> > caught off guard by the explosion of the world wide web in 1994 and early
> > 1995. Not until late 1995 did Microsoft even introduce products that were
> > considered competitive.
> It is not only Microsoft was caught off guard. Apple and IBM were also
> caught off guard. Both Mac and Os/2 were not shipped in with browsers.
The Mac came out before browsers, and OS/2 came out when the net was just
beggining to hit the public. The WWW was still character based when OS/2
hit the shelves. Your point?
> > push its niche technologies such as internet OLE ("ActiveX") from a
> > market share position that at best could be called niche and at worst
> > might be characterized as nonexistent (0 to 5% depending on what MS
> ActiveX is still very new. Wait and see...
Ha, what a crock. ActiveX new? Sheeah. ActiveX is OLE2 repackeaged and
trotted out for your consumption. New... thats a good one.
> > internet product you look at) to become new internet standards. The
> > Elephant is assuming that by stomping around and wailing loudly it can
> > pulverize new standards out of the ether. I'm sorry, Bill. It's not
> > happening. You should either embrace existing standards and extend them
> > or get out of this market entirely. Nobody wants kludgey closed windows
> > standards stinking up the world wide web.
> This "Nobody" must be some frustrated Mac, OS/2 or some Unix fanatics.
Do you have any idea what open standard are? I don't think you do. If you did
you wouldn't be saying that. You really aren't a programmer are you? Your just
a mass media consumer cloneoid waiting to lap up the next great thing Microsoft
slops into your stretched out bowl.
> Market share of OS is still much more significant than browser market
> share. Netscape will always be seen as a tiny competitor compared to
> Microsoft. With the vast OS and apps market share, Microsoft is still
> anytime a dangerous foe.
Of course it is. But its a big, slow, heavy one. Thats why they are getting
left in the dust with this new technology.
> It is true Internet is still a battle ground that's just a few days old.
> With Microsoft trying to integrate everything into internet, the shape
> of things to come will be from Microsoft, not Netscape. Does Netscape
> sells os,wordproc, spreadsheet.......? The answer is NO. Once MS comes
> out with these products, developers and users will follow in like little
> dogs. Keep your wishful thinking.
Jeeze... word processors and spreadsheets. Yeah, no kidding. No, netscape
doesn't sell those things. Interesting that when you mention the www and
browsers and servers the company that leaps to mind most reaily is Netscape,
huh?
--
-Tim
=======================================================
"Don't Jimmy me Julie, I don't need you to tell me how
good my coffee is, I'm the one that buys it... But right
now I got something else on my mind, and it ain't the
coffee..."
-Quintin Tarrentino
Pulp Fiction
========================================================
Kenneth R. Brownfield
Foo Chuan Herng wrote:
[...]
> I did not say Bill Gates was the only one. He did and he is also doing
> it now (by integrating internet into future OS and apps). History is in
> the making. Can you say Bill completely did nothing to popularize
> internet?
Yes. If you mean that when it became popular he jumped on the band-
wagon with his vain "The Road Ahead", then yes. Who hasn't?
[...]
> It is not only Microsoft was caught off guard. Apple and IBM were also
> caught off guard. Both Mac and Os/2 were not shipped in with browsers.
Wrong on the Mac side, and I'm pretty sure wrong on the OS/2 side.
Try again.
[...]
> Hehe...What a naive statement. Compaq and many other clones do not have
> much technology. Many clones with good sale figures don't even
> manufacture parts themselves. So I can assume that they must be in a
> weak position.
Yes, you can. "Weak position" is relative to the Internet, and when Compaq
writes a browser you will no longer have to eat your words.
[...]
> ActiveX is still very new. Wait and see...
Your perception of the future of this technology is hardly a refutation of
his opinion. See my notes below. Besides, what marketing drone out
there in the industry keeps putting the letter "X" in model names? I
think it was decided that "blahblah X" or "X 2000" are much more
catchy. Do you really know what ActiveX is? Or is it the neat catch-
phrase that your favorite software company uses that must mean
something really cool and market-dominating?
[...]
> This "Nobody" must be some frustrated Mac, OS/2 or some Unix fanatics.
Yes, everyone who knows better :). Microsoft has some good products,
but their ENTIRE success story was/is "We were there first." Windows
is purchased because it's the standard, the first and the one that stayed
afloat the longest, and for no other reason. Microsoft has historically
been unsuccessful in uphill battles. In the PC market, they just haven't
built uphill endurance because they've rarely been behind in their focus
markets. Ever heard of Blackbird?
MS is growing lazy. Try to compile serious code in Visual C++ or
PowerStation FORTRAN. Try to use Visual FoxPro in a professional
environment. Very shiny, visually appealing, crap.
The Internet is one hell of an uphill battle for them, and only time will
tell. I suspect that MS will see a great deal of loyal consumers who
would buy anything that has the double-barreled cliche of "Microsoft"
and "Internet". Their purchases will be based on brand-name recognition,
not features or standards.
[...]
> The journey is still far ahead.
In other words, "I don't know, and neither do you." Is this a refutation?
[...]
> Indeed AOL has agreed to use Microsoft's browser. So far so good for
> Netscape.
Well, actually Netscape swiped that deal out from under Microsoft. I
think the default is Netscape, but AOLers can chose IE or about a bajillion
other browsers. Don't think that Microsoft was pleased with that decision
(not to mention VRML...)
> Market share of OS is still much more significant than browser market
> share. Netscape will always be seen as a tiny competitor compared to
> Microsoft. With the vast OS and apps market share, Microsoft is still
> anytime a dangerous foe.
Yes, quite a deadly foe. They have passable products, intensely loyal MIS
managers, and mislead consumers. Always good to have, but never EVER
a guarantee.
Netscape is a tiny competitor to MS only in markets that Netscape has NO
presence or intent to be present. You're trying to tell us that this is a
victory?
> It is true Internet is still a battle ground that's just a few days old.
> With Microsoft trying to integrate everything into internet, the shape
> of things to come will be from Microsoft, not Netscape. Does Netscape
> sells os,wordproc, spreadsheet.......? The answer is NO. Once MS comes
> out with these products, developers and users will follow in like little
> dogs. Keep your wishful thinking.
What??? Once MS comes out with OSs, word processors, and
spreadsheets, Netscape will be dead? What??? The only foot MS has
in the door to implement these technologies on the Internet is the
OLE port, which is -> x86 only <-. No cross-platform support on the
Internet? I certainly laughed when I read that. PCs don't have the
dominant presence on the 'net that they have on desktops.
Netscape is going to become an OS in and of itself. MS is scrambling to
create a passable _browser_, much less build on the concept. Oh, I
know, MS created their own bandwidth-crippling HTML tag. Besides,
in the area that you are talking about here, MS' competitor is JavaSoft,
not Netscape. Sun is not going to be easy to crack.
Apps written in Java are going to eat Microsoft alive unless they convert.
The development shift to Java has been staggering. OLE is an under-
implemented technology on Microsoft's capital ship Windows, much less
whatever they're going to throw together as fast as they can for the
Internet. It is PRIMITIVE and LIMITING. It is not a plug-in replacement
for Java by any stretch. If you have a PC, ActiveX may be a different Java
for you. What developer wants to write their Internet Apps twice?
Not one.
Unless Microsoft creates a platform-independent compiler /
interpreter (probably based on VB) they will have little presence other
than as a Java App developer. Java is here, and Microsoft is going to
have to focus on the next generation which will be many, many years
down the road. And unless MS can get their Java replacement into whatever
browser is/are the leader(s) at that time...
To put it simply, your intense loyalty to Microsoft is certainly not going to
win your arguments for you.
> ******* FOO CHUAN HERNG *******
> ******** LIVE WELL LOVE DEEP ********
> ** http://home.pacific.net.sg/~gauntlet **
> ******************************************
--
Ken.
brow...@farmer.com
Christopher C. Wood
In article <3194FE...@mailhost.net>, Foo Chuan Herng <Gaun...@mailhost.net> writes:
|> Jagrulz1 wrote:
|> > Bill Gates "popularized the internet"? I've heard of revisionist
|> > history but that is just ridiculous. In fact, I have never seen
|> > a more naive statement posted anywhere on usenet. Today, anyone
|> > who has ever opened a book or read a newspaper should know that
|> > Netscape has a commanding share
|> I did not say Bill Gates was the only one. He did and he is also
|> doing it now (by integrating internet into future OS and
|> apps). History is in the making. Can you say Bill completely did
|> nothing to popularize internet?
That's right. If you think Bill and Co. did something to popularize
the internet, what do you think they did? Microsoft is a latecomer to
the world of the Internet. The Internet became popular in spite of
Microsoft, not because of Microsoft.
[ trimmed ]
|> > Suddenly, as with MSN v/ AOL, Microsoft is the "little guy"
|> > (figuratively). They can no longer introduce a kludge product or
|> > weakly
|> Indeed AOL has agreed to use Microsoft's browser. So far so good
|> for Netscape.
"Microsoft's Browser" is simply licensed from Spry, who licensed NCSA
Mosaic from University of Illinois.
Chris
--
Speaking only for myself, of course.
Chris Wood chr...@lexis-nexis.com ca...@CFAnet.com
Matt Kennel
Jagrulz1 (jagr...@aol.com) wrote:
: Worse yet, none of the major technologies that comprise the World Wide
: Web came from Microsoft.
This is a feature, not a bug.
I think it's no surprise that the internet has grown to the size
and interest that it has because MS has had not a miniscule
influence in its technologies.
It's an AMAZING achievement that TCP/IP, perhaps designed
when there were fewer than 100 VAXen on the proto-Internet,
connected with 56k lines, STILL WORKS!
Where is DECNET? Where is Netware? Where is SNA?
: JaGRUlZoNE
Foo Chuan Herng
> Tim O'Neil wrote:
> Why infact, yes. Microsoft has done as little as possible to popularize it. What
> do you think the MSN was? A happy attempt to expand on the cornerstone that is
> the internet, or the impotent attempt of a paranoid buisness giant to cash in on
> something they didn't think of?
companies, I say again STUPID companies like MAC thought that being
"advance" or restricting itself in certain areas will always be a way to
win.
> The Mac came out before browsers, and OS/2 came out when the net was just
> beggining to hit the public. The WWW was still character based when OS/2
> hit the shelves. Your point?
of them did not until now.
> Ha, what a crock. ActiveX new? Sheeah. ActiveX is OLE2 repackeaged and
> trotted out for your consumption. New... thats a good one.
present graphical internet.
> Do you have any idea what open standard are? I don't think you do. If you did
> you wouldn't be saying that. You really aren't a programmer are you? Your just
> a mass media consumer cloneoid waiting to lap up the next great thing Microsoft
> slops into your stretched out bowl.
I happened to be a programmer. I happily lap up anything that is well
supported. I am not some silly fanatics whose life revolve around witch
hunts and idol-worshipping.
> Of course it is. But its a big, slow, heavy one. Thats why they are getting
> left in the dust with this new technology.
Rest assure.
> Jeeze... word processors and spreadsheets. Yeah, no kidding. No, netscape
> doesn't sell those things. Interesting that when you mention the www and
> browsers and servers the company that leaps to mind most reaily is Netscape,
> huh? What comes to most of our minds is that Netscape's program supported
Microsoft OS like Win95 heavily. And what comes to mind is that Netscape
does not support poor selling OS like OS/2. What comes to mind that
Netscape will also be seen as a "follower" against Microsoft in the
market share of softwares. Did Netscape ask you where you want to go?
--
*************** Foo Chuan Herng ************
******* Live Long ******** Love Deep *******
*** http://home.pacific.net.sg/~gauntlet ***
Richard Burr
On a recent visit to a bookmarked site I was hijacked to an undesirable
location. How is this possible? Has someone been messing with the
bookmarks or has someone at the server end re-directed me to their
favourite page? Is there a possibility of me being on the end of someone
else's Netscape 2.0 Java hack job?
As a result I am facing disciplinary action from my
near internet-illiterate bosses. It is their contention that the only
way to come across undesirable images or material is to actively seek it
out. Any help appreciated!
H Doan
In article <319A7E...@nzdri.org.nz>, Richard Burr <bu...@nzdri.org.nz> wrote:
>On a recent visit to a bookmarked site I was hijacked to an undesirable
>location. How is this possible? Has someone been messing with the
>bookmarks or has someone at the server end re-directed me to their
>favourite page? Is there a possibility of me being on the end of someone
>else's Netscape 2.0 Java hack job?
>
a simple meta tag that refreshes and re-directs the URL.
--HD
>
>On a recent visit to a bookmarked site I was hijacked to an undesirable
>location. How is this possible?
>
>As a result I am facing disciplinary action from my near internet-
>illiterate bosses. It is their contention that the only way to come
>across undesirable images or material is to actively seek it out.
==============
Any company that would discipline their workers based on what sites they
visit is living in the stone-age.
For what it's worth, the server HTML can indeed send you anywhere
it wants to go if you click on the link. Indeed, with server redirection,
even a innocent looking link, www.library.comp.com can be redirected
to www.playboy.com without you realizing you're going to playboy until
you're there.
Jump ship, you're working for a bunch of idiots!!!!
Eric Larson
e-l...@uiuc.edu
David P. Adam
Richard Burr <bu...@nzdri.org.nz> wrote:
>On a recent visit to a bookmarked site I was hijacked to an undesirable
>location. How is this possible? Has someone been messing with the
>bookmarks or has someone at the server end re-directed me to their
>favourite page? Is there a possibility of me being on the end of someone
>else's Netscape 2.0 Java hack job?
>As a result I am facing disciplinary action from my
>near internet-illiterate bosses. It is their contention that the only
>way to come across undesirable images or material is to actively seek it
>out. Any help appreciated!
There was a long thread a month or so ago in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.images dealing with web authors who
"steal" resources from other computers by pointing their pages to .gif
files on other machines, rather than serving up their own images. If
a popular site on computer A does this by pointing to images stored on
computer B, then all of the hits for images by A's users must be
handled by B. The most probable use of this scheme would be for the
avoidance of handling general-purpose utility icons and bullets, and
it could get used either by knowledgeable users trying to get
something for free, or by unwitting authors who simply copy a pathname
to something they need without realizing the implications.
The discussion was between various B's who wanted a way to retaliate
against A's who were placing a heavy load on their systems. Let's say
I have an image, GREENDOT.GIF, that I use on my page and like, but
someone else with a web page appealing to a wide audience has put a
pointer to it on his/her page, so all of a sudden I am getting 20K
hits per day on that image. What I can do is to change my page so it
points to a newly-renamed file for my green dot, and substitute some
other file for the content of GREENDOT.GIF. The new content could
range from a polite "Please stop doing this" to more offensive
material, which is probably what you saw.
If the image you saw simply popped up on your screen and someone else
saw it and took offense, the scenario above probably applies. If you
were caught by a logging system that keeps a record of sites visited
and noticed that you called a known purveyor of doubtful material,
then something more sophisticated may be at work involving actual
redirection of your innocent request. I'm not sure how that could be
done, but I'll bet someone knows how to do it.
In any case, you should examine the source code of the page that
sandbagged you and see if any of the image tags point to another site.
That may give you some clues as to what is going on. If you contact
the owners of any third sites, they may be able to provide you with an
alibi.
Good luck!
David P. Adam
da...@quercus.org
Alexandre Maret
Richard Burr wrote:
>
> On a recent visit to a bookmarked site I was hijacked to an undesirable
> location. How is this possible? Has someone been messing with the
> bookmarks or has someone at the server end re-directed me to their
> favourite page? Is there a possibility of me being on the end of someone
> else's Netscape 2.0 Java hack job?
>
- write a simple Java applet that call the showDocument() method
- add a <meta> refresh tag to the page, with a pointer to another URL
and I'm pretty sure that it is possible to do something like that
with a little bit of javaScript.
If you need a working example, there is an applet that is called autoload
that perform what you want.
> As a result I am facing disciplinary action from my
> near internet-illiterate bosses. It is their contention that the only
I have near internet-illiterate teachers... same problem ;-)
> way to come across undesirable images or material is to actively seek it
> out. Any help appreciated!
hope it helps...
alex
Dwight Johnson
Richard Burr <bu...@nzdri.org.nz> wrote:
>On a recent visit to a bookmarked site I was hijacked to an undesirable
>location. How is this possible? Has someone been messing with the
>bookmarks or has someone at the server end re-directed me to their
>favourite page? Is there a possibility of me being on the end of someone
>else's Netscape 2.0 Java hack job?
>As a result I am facing disciplinary action from my
>near internet-illiterate bosses. It is their contention that the only
>way to come across undesirable images or material is to actively seek it
>out. Any help appreciated!
Show your employers the following.
For the past four months I have been telling Olympians that the
deployment of Java on the WWW is a serious security problem. Finally,
the shit is beginning to hit the fan.
Regards,
Dwight
----------
From: Home Page Press, Inc.[SMTP:st...@hpp.com]
Sent: Saturday, May 11, 1996 8:50 AM
To: st...@hpp.com
Subject: JAVA BLACK WIDOWS - SUN DECLARES WAR
JAVA BLACK WIDOWS - SUN DECLARES WAR
Sun Microsystems' has declared war on Black Widow Java
applets on the Web. This is the message from Sun in response
to an extensive Online Business Consultant (OBC/May 96)
investigation into Java security.
OBC's investigation and report was prompted after renowned
academics, scientists and hackers announced Java applets
downloaded from the WWW presented grave security risks for
users. Java Black Widow applets are hostile, malicious traps set
by cyberthugs out to snare surfing prey, using Java as their
technology.
OBC received a deluge of letters asking for facts after OBC
announced a group of scientists from Princeton University, Drew
Dean, Edward Felten and Dan Wallach, published a paper declaring
"The Java system in its current form cannot easily be made secure."
The paper can be retrieved at
http://www.cs.princeton.edu/sip/pub/secure96.html.
Further probing by OBC found that innocent surfers on the Web who
download Java applets into Netscape's Navigator and Sun's
HotJava browser, risk having "hostile" applets interfere with their
computers (consuming RAM and CPU cycles). It was also discovered
applets could connect to a third party on the Internet and, without
the
PC owner's knowledge, upload sensitive information from the user's
computer. Even the most sophisticated firewalls can be penetrated . .
Gary Petiford
On Wed, 15 May 1996 18:02:09 -0700, Richard Burr <bu...@nzdri.org.nz>
wrote:
>On a recent visit to a bookmarked site I was hijacked to an undesirable
>location. How is this possible? Has someone been messing with the
>bookmarks or has someone at the server end re-directed me to their
>favourite page? Is there a possibility of me being on the end of someone
>else's Netscape 2.0 Java hack job?
>
>As a result I am facing disciplinary action from my
>near internet-illiterate bosses. It is their contention that the only
>way to come across undesirable images or material is to actively seek it
>out. Any help appreciated!
If you've got your bookmarks divided into folders for instance where
they tend to spread out across the underlying page, if you happen to
click in slightly the wrong place, you can sometimes trigger a link
lying underneath the bookmarks. It's happened to me on several
occasions.
gp
Dittoheads are educated beyond their intellectual
capacity.
Steve Merrifield
David P. Adam (da...@quercus.org) wrote:
: Richard Burr <bu...@nzdri.org.nz> wrote:
: >On a recent visit to a bookmarked site I was hijacked to an undesirable
: >location. How is this possible? Has someone been messing with the
: >bookmarks or has someone at the server end re-directed me to their
: >favourite page? Is there a possibility of me being on the end of someone
: >else's Netscape 2.0 Java hack job?
<lots of stuff deleted>
: redirection of your innocent request. I'm not sure how that could be
: done, but I'll bet someone knows how to do it.
Real easy, but only certain browsers can handle it, so sometimes it
works and other times it doesn't. Redirection is generally used when
a page moves from one site to another, and instead of saying something
like *this page has moved, please click here to go to the new one*, the
author will just redirect the request to the new page. Check out the
META REFRESH command in html...
_ ___ _ _ _ _ _
/ ) ( _) /\/ )/ / )| |/ ) Steve Merrifield
/ / _/ / / // / / / / s...@ee.latrobe.edu.au
(___)(___)(_/\/ \__/ (_/|_| http://livewire.ee.latrobe.edu.au
Dwight Johnson
>Subject: JAVA BLACK WIDOWS - SUN DECLARES WAR
My original post is apparently too long for the news system. I will be
happy to e-mail the complete post to anyone who asks for it.
Dwight Johnson
djoh...@olympus.net
>
>> Jump ship, you're working for a bunch of idiots!!!!
>> Eric Larson
>> e-l...@uiuc.edu
>
>Easy to say when you're in school. Once you start working for a living,
>you'll find that most of the places you work at are run by idiots. You
>can't always jump ship.
=========
Wish it were true, but schools was many, many years ago. The disruptions
caused by leaving an oppressive workplace have always been less then the
joys of working someplace new.
Jump ship!!!
Eric Larson
e-l...@uiuc.edu
Bob Witham Jr.
e-l...@uiuc.edu@ wrote:
> Any company that would discipline their workers based on what sites they
> visit is living in the stone-age.
>
Steve Cole
On Sun, 12 May 1996, Foo Chuan Herng wrote:
> caught off guard. Both Mac and Os/2 were not shipped in with browsers.
My OS/2 was definetly shipped with a browser.
> > or get out of this market entirely. Nobody wants kludgey closed windows
> > standards stinking up the world wide web.
>
> This "Nobody" must be some frustrated Mac, OS/2 or some Unix fanatics.
Why should they be frustrated? Because *you* like Windows? Do you have
some need to have your favourite computer and operating system in use by
everyone so you can point to it and say "see, I told you so?"
Normally I wouldn't even bother responding, but this is drivel.
> With Microsoft trying to integrate everything into internet, the shape
> of things to come will be from Microsoft, not Netscape. Does Netscape
> sells os,wordproc, spreadsheet.......? The answer is NO. Once MS comes
> out with these products, developers and users will follow in like little
> dogs. Keep your wishful thinking.
You'd better wake up... I've seen co-operative databases, spreadsheets and
even a word-processor written in Java. And since Java is being
incorporated into the Mac, OS/2 and UNIX operating systems as well as
Win95, I'd say that YOU may not think it's important, but THEY do. And
Netscape can run all those apps *TODAY*.
Cheers,
Steve |President & Systems Administrator, Kingston Online Services
|613-549-8667 Voice co...@limestone.kosone.com Internet
|(e pluribus unix) 2xT-1! URL: http://www.kosone.com/kos/
|Partnering in business and education in SouthEastern Ontario
|
|"Through the firewall, out the router, down the T1, across the
| backbone, bounced from satellite, it's nothing but net."
Jeffrey S. Curtis
e-l...@uiuc.edu writes:
} [...]
}Jump ship!!!
If you were my employer, and I came in to work every day and wasted a
few hours surfing the Playboy and Penthouse Web sites, would you
discipline me? And if you did, and I "jumped shipped" due to your
"oppression", would you be mad?
Jeff (one of those evil oppressor guys who occasionally has to monitor
his users' traffic)
--
Jeffrey S. Curtis | Internetwork Manager
Argonne National Laboratory | Email: cur...@anl.gov
9700 South Cass Avenue, ECT-221 | Voice: 708/252-1789
Argonne, IL 60439 | Fax: 708/252-9689
Brian Alber Doreste
In article <4nfnqg$a...@milo.mcs.anl.gov>,
Jeffrey S. Curtis <cur...@anl.gov> wrote:
jc>e-l...@uiuc.edu writes:
jc>} [...]
jc>}Jump ship!!!
jc>
jc>If you were my employer, and I came in to work every day and wasted a
jc>few hours surfing the Playboy and Penthouse Web sites, would you
jc>discipline me? And if you did, and I "jumped shipped" due to your
jc>"oppression", would you be mad?
Jeff, I think you missed the point. He followed a link that he thought
was going to take him to an innocent site, but instead, the link took him
to an undesirable site. He had no intention of 'wasting a few hours
surfing the Playboy and Penthouse web sites', but found himself there due
to an erroneous (or intentionally erroneous) link written by the author
of the page he was viewing. If his employers are too naive to believe
that it is possible for someone to code that page wrong and it was purely
accidental that he was there, then why should he stay there if no one
will believe him? To be blunt, his employer is most likely some computer
illiterate moron that has absolutely no clue as to how the World Wide Web
works and assumed that he had to be actually searching offensive material
for it to be followed by a link.
- Brian
jc>Jeff (one of those evil oppressor guys who occasionally has to monitor
jc> his users' traffic)
jc>--
jc>Jeffrey S. Curtis | Internetwork Manager
jc>Argonne National Laboratory | Email: cur...@anl.gov
jc>9700 South Cass Avenue, ECT-221 | Voice: 708/252-1789
jc>Argonne, IL 60439 | Fax: 708/252-9689
Radiospace
In fact many pornographic web pages have hundreds of misleading keywords
to get you there. They operate under the principle that if you make it to
their homepage they can entice you into buying their service. Conversely,
many non-pornographic sites that are seeking to make money include "sex"
and related words as keywords that will turn up in a Websearch to get
those looking for porno to show up at their site by accident.
Jeffrey S. Curtis
bdor...@copland.udel.edu (Brian Alber Doreste) writes:
}Jeff, I think you missed the point. He followed a link that he thought
}was going to take him to an innocent site, but instead, the link took him
}to an undesirable site. He had no intention of 'wasting a few hours
}surfing the Playboy and Penthouse web sites',
}accidental that he was there, then why should he stay there if no one
I agree with you in terms of the original poster's quandry. My
comments were aimed at the respondant who seemed to be implying that
employers are "living in the Stone Age" unless they allow their
employees to use company resources to indiscriminately surf the Web
during business hours.
Jeff
--
Jeffrey S. Curtis | Internetwork Manager
Argonne National Laboratory | Email: cur...@anl.gov
9700 South Cass Avenue, ECT-221 | Voice: 708/252-1789
Kiran Reddy
> You'd better wake up... I've seen co-operative databases, spreadsheets and
> even a word-processor written in Java. And since Java is being
> incorporated into the Mac, OS/2 and UNIX operating systems as well as
> Win95, I'd say that YOU may not think it's important, but THEY do. And
> Netscape can run all those apps *TODAY*.
>
why, do you think i will have my applications going through the network
and
there by causing all the delay and security problems using JAva or any
other
internet stuff.
kiran
Rich Paul
Foo Chuan Herng wrote:
> Netscape will also be seen as a "follower" against Microsoft in the
> market share of softwares. Did Netscape ask you where you want to go?
Well, you can't argue with Microsoft's superior marketing. Now if only
something could be done with it's technical mediocrity.
Have you ever tried to write a windows program that is STABLE? Actually
BULLET-PROOF?
Good luck ... you can't write a stable program for an OS that crashes all the
time. That's Windows, NT, and 95 in a nut-shell. The programs get bigger and
bigger, more and more bloated, but the one thing they can't get them to do is
RUN without CRASHING.
Windoze is something to keep the idiots happy until they know enough to demand
a REAL operating system.
--
#include <legalbs/standarddisclaimer>
Rich Paul | If you like what I say, tell my
C++, OOD, OOA, OOP, | employer, but if you don't,
OOPs, I forgot one ... | don't blame them. ;->
Foo Chuan Herng
Steve Cole wrote:
> Why should they be frustrated? Because *you* like Windows? Do you have
> some need to have your favourite computer and operating system in use by
> everyone so you can point to it and say "see, I told you so?"
>
> Normally I wouldn't even bother responding, but this is drivel.
Do MAC/LINUX/OS2 *FANATICS* <---(NOT EVERYONE) have to have everybody
thrashing MS and using their OS?
> You'd better wake up... I've seen co-operative databases, spreadsheets and
> even a word-processor written in Java. And since Java is being
> incorporated into the Mac, OS/2 and UNIX operating systems as well as
> Win95, I'd say that YOU may not think it's important, but THEY do. And
> Netscape can run all those apps *TODAY*.
You better wake up yourself. Java is slow and ponderous. C/C++ is the
way. Java is just another branch of C, but certainly not a replacement.
Java wordprocessor and database fighting with MS Word or even Acess?
A real cute joke.
Dave Glue
>You better wake up yourself. Java is slow and ponderous. C/C++ is the
>way. Java is just another branch of C, but certainly not a replacement.
>Java wordprocessor and database fighting with MS Word or even Acess?
>A real cute joke.
Do you really believe Java is going to remain an interpreted language?
There are already several on-the-fly compilers increasing Java's speed
10-50 times.
Bob Hournbuckle
Quite true. I'm still in school and I've seen it...
2cents
Bob Witham Jr. wrote:
>
> e-l...@uiuc.edu@ wrote:
> > Any company that would discipline their workers based on what sites they
> > visit is living in the stone-age.
Paul Laughton
Richard Burr <bu...@nzdri.org.nz> wrote:
>On a recent visit to a bookmarked site I was hijacked to an undesirable
>location. How is this possible? Has someone been messing with the
>bookmarks or has someone at the server end re-directed me to their
>favourite page? Is there a possibility of me being on the end of someone
>else's Netscape 2.0 Java hack job?
>As a result I am facing disciplinary action from my
>near internet-illiterate bosses. It is their contention that the only
>way to come across undesirable images or material is to actively seek it
>out. Any help appreciated!
Richard,
Scott Adams would enjoy this story. Who knows, it could end up in
Dilbert cartoon.
Yes, if you are using Netscape 2.0, any site you load can
automatically move you to any other site with no action required or
consent needed on you part. You do not need to have Java or Java
Script enabled for this to work.
-Paul
Jeffrey E. Bazinet
Kiran Reddy <kre...@cs.wvu.edu> wrote:
>> You'd better wake up... I've seen co-operative databases, spreadsheets and
>> even a word-processor written in Java. And since Java is being
>> incorporated into the Mac, OS/2 and UNIX operating systems as well as
>> Win95, I'd say that YOU may not think it's important, but THEY do. And
>> Netscape can run all those apps *TODAY*.
>>
>hello,
>why, do you think i will have my applications going through the network
>and
>there by causing all the delay and security problems using JAva or any
>other
>internet stuff.
>kiran
Kiran,
you and those like you are the central impediment to progress and are
the source of the "Software Crisis" we are in. You very much remind of
Mainframe COBOL guys who were pissed off with the advent of the PC and
client/server.
An interconnected world of servers and business objects has bright
potential for business and the world. Most importantly, we may finally
get a handle of the process of software construction so that it is as
smooth and easy as building a house.
Applets, distributed Business Objects, and fast networks are all very
healthy for the Industry as a whole. However, some would rather have
the Microsoft 1985 model: huge client applications,platform
dependance,very primitive objects, and total vendor dependence.
You probably thought IBM was going to dominate for 50 years! Ha ha!
Dan
Kenneth Michael Apa
ity.unix,comp.security.misc,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.win95.setup,comp.os.ms-windows.win95.misc,comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.misc,comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.object:
Followup-To: comp.sys.mac.system,comp.sys.laptops,comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.misc,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.hp.hpux,comp.sys.amiga.advocacy,comp.software-eng,comp.secu
rity.unix,comp.security.misc,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.win95.setup,comp.os.ms-windows.win95.misc,comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.misc,comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.object
References: <Pine.SV4.3.91.960411...@adelaide.dialix.oz.au> <31918C...@hevanet.com>
Distribution:
Phillip Tompkins Jr (mad...@hevanet.com) wrote:
: I have no problem with
: Microsoft products... they seem to work fine for me... are you to dumm
: to figure them out? They are really made for idiots.... Is that why
Only an idiot would use Microsoft products. They are some of the most poorly
writen programs I've ever seen. NT is inferior to Unix. Win95 is
inferior to Linux. Dos/Win3.1 just plain sucks. Most people run 95 so I'll
compare it to Linux. (I think it would be really unfair to compare NT to a
real OS like Irix) First and foremost, I really hate syncronous O/I, and
Win96 uses it more than you can shake a stick at. Don't MS people ever
wonder why certain programms just take over and there is nothing you can
do about it. 95 doesn't have a protected filesystem. Maybe Bill Gates and
Peter Norton(personally, I think he writes all the viruses) are lovers,
because there is really no reason for 95 not to, other than the fact that
they're just plain bad programmers. Linux uses a protected file system and
the answer is "NO you can't get a virus". It impossible, so you'd better
get use to the idea. In 95 you can't draw directly to the
screen....bummer, Looks like you'll never get decent graphics(320x200,
16 colors, 3D graphics don't impress me. I render at 1280x1024, 16 million
colors four times as fast on my Iris 4D/25, and it's six years old).
And yes, I am to stupid to figure out Microsoft stuff, but I seem
understand how to re-compile the kernel on my SGI just fine.
: you had to get a quote out of a book? I see... couldn't think of
: anything original.... That's ok... Let's see you write a better program
: than Microsoft... Ever tried calling tech support for an MS product? I
A team of programs vs. one person....just a little unfair.
Here are some real operating systems
http://www.linux.org
http://www.sgi.com
http://www.sun.com
: always get right through (well the 3 times that I have ever called)..
: And they fixed the problem in under 10 minutes!!! Sounds like your up
: for a challenge of writing a better product... if you can't well don't
: dis on Microsoft because atleast their products work better than the
: ones you have written...
They do??? If you've seen my programs, your doing something illegal.
It boils down to this. People use Microsoft because they can run out to
best buy and buy it. It's easy to get a hold of, and Bill is good at
marketing(REAL GOOD). Most poeple have only seen MS and Macs. They
haven't seen anything worth it's weight in shipping, becuase until Linux,
they couldn't afford it. Face it, Microsoft is real low-end.
Ken Apa
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Running Irix5.3 at home
Unix or bust
Linus Torvalds, I'm your biggest fan!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marty Kenny
Even after hours use of company resources for personal use is only
acceptable with explicit permission
Ed Redondo
In article <319a73c6...@news.dialnet.net>,
ga...@dialnet.net (Gary Petiford) wrote:
>On Wed, 15 May 1996 18:02:09 -0700, Richard Burr <bu...@nzdri.org.nz>
>wrote:
>
>>On a recent visit to a bookmarked site I was hijacked to an undesirable
>>location. How is this possible? Has someone been messing with the
>>bookmarks or has someone at the server end re-directed me to their
>>favourite page? Is there a possibility of me being on the end of someone
>>else's Netscape 2.0 Java hack job?
>>
>>As a result I am facing disciplinary action from my
>>near internet-illiterate bosses. It is their contention that the only
>>way to come across undesirable images or material is to actively seek it
>>out. Any help appreciated!
>
>they tend to spread out across the underlying page, if you happen to
>click in slightly the wrong place, you can sometimes trigger a link
>lying underneath the bookmarks. It's happened to me on several
>occasions.
>
Hint to avoid this, make your Bookmark List your home page,...........
file:///g:\internet\netscape\bookmark.htm
.........is my home page. (note the *triple* "/")
Makes it much easier than using the menu.
==============================================================
The truth of a proposition has nothing to do with its
credibility. And vice versa.
Religious practice is an individual's right; *not* a right
of the public to be imposed on other individuals.
====================================== Ed Redondo ============
J. Maynard Gelinas
rity.unix,comp.security.misc,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.win95.setup,comp.os.ms-windows.win95.misc,comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.misc,comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.object
References: <3193cc58....@piranha.dev.prodigy.net> <4ncoq1$s...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> <319B08...@state.me.us> <4nf7nu$9...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> <4nfnqg$a...@milo.mcs.anl.gov>
Distribution:
This message is crossposted to far too many newsgroups, but the
subject matter is so serious that I'm not going to edit the Followup-To
field.
Regarding a net user who had a page hijacked to an undesirable
site by a java applet or simple html tag while at work and now faces
disiplinary action from his employers.
This guy:
: Jeffrey S. Curtis | Internetwork Manager
: Argonne National Laboratory | Email: cur...@anl.gov
Wrote:
: If you were my employer, and I came in to work every day and wasted a
: few hours surfing the Playboy and Penthouse Web sites, would you
: discipline me? And if you did, and I "jumped shipped" due to your
: "oppression", would you be mad?
: Jeff (one of those evil oppressor guys who occasionally has to monitor
: his users' traffic)
Absolutely correct. *BUT* I don't think the original poster had
suggested that he was abusing a corporate privilege, but is under threat
of punishment for something he has no control over. So the issue here
isn't is a company employee wasting paid time by viewing sex or some other
irrelevant web pages, but one of ignorant employers wasting company time
looking over employees shoulders and punishing without reason or cause.
There is a great case to be made for an employer logging web
overuse for irrelevant and wasted time, but such a policy must be used
with the full knowledge of how easily the web can sidetrack a user from
his/her original goal. Most net seaches can take a user on a
rollercoaster ride of web pages before he/she finnaly finds their goal.
Add to that java applets and html tags that redirect a user to another
page and you have a situation where a good employee working for a stupid
employer can get 'in trouble' for doing good work. A functional policy
would monitor usage over time, and build a rock solid case against the
employee before bringing disciplinary action, not a single case of a user
finding him/herself at some web page they have little interest in and
splitting.
I'd say that this guy is working for a technologically and
sociologically backward company and ought to start looking for another
job quickly. I wouldn't put up with such behavior, especially if I were
doing quality work (which I pride myself in), and had busted butt to
support my employers with whatever they had tasked out. Work is work, I
think we all accept that, but this 19th century corporate feudalism and
oligarchy is the real time (and money) wasting culprit. Don't bother
trying to 'help' them into the 21st century, get another job and let
corporate evolution grind these guys into chapter 11.
jmg
Jeffrey S. Curtis
may...@jmg.com (J. Maynard Gelinas) writes:
} Absolutely correct. *BUT* I don't think the original poster had
}suggested that he was abusing a corporate privilege, but is under threat
}of punishment for something he has no control over.
J., I agree with you fully, and in fact, I have used many of the same
arguments you listed when I have been asked by my management to produce
lists of users who were accessing "inappropriate" Web sites. But please
note that my article to which you responded was *not* directed at the
original poster (who obviously has a serious problem with his apparently
cluefully-challenged employer); rather, my comments were directed at the
fellow who made this blanket statement:
"Any company that would discipline their workers based on what sites they
visit is living in the stone-age."
I believe there is a strong case for disciplining workers based on what
sites they visit, while at the same time, I completely understand that
there will be cases like the original poster's wherein he essentially
had no control over the fact that he visited an inappropriate site.
Jeff
--
Jeffrey S. Curtis | Internetwork Manager
Argonne National Laboratory | Email: cur...@anl.gov
Rob J Meijer
Foo Chuan Herng <gaun...@mailhost.net> writes:
>Steve Cole wrote:
>> Why should they be frustrated? Because *you* like Windows? Do you have
>> some need to have your favourite computer and operating system in use by
>> everyone so you can point to it and say "see, I told you so?"
>>
>> Normally I wouldn't even bother responding, but this is drivel.
>Do MAC/LINUX/OS2 *FANATICS* <---(NOT EVERYONE) have to have everybody
>thrashing MS and using their OS?
You are looking at it the wron way, those LINUX/OS2 fanatics as you
call them are just triing to educate all those ignorant M$ users that just
don't realize the potential their x86 could have for sertain porposes if
they migrated to another OS. You must face it that Linux and OS2 are the OS of choice to 100%
of those who use it, while 90% of MS users don't even realize they have a
choice. I think it to be the duty of both the Linux and OS2 users, and of
the 10% of people who DID make a concience choice for MS to educate those
90% of people on the merits (for a lot of purposes) of other x86 Operating
systems. Each of the serious avordable OS systems for the x86 have things
in what they are better than the other, and i think it is important to
educate those people who are not aware of this. OS2 and Linux users
defenetly all are aware of this, they all made a verry concience choice
for their OS, so there is no use in triing to convince those people to
migrate to MS. Most Win3.x and Win95 users however got their PC with their
OS installed on it, a lot of them don't know OS2, and most of them never
even heard of Linux, so there is use in triing to convince MS users that
they need an other OS, for a large section of MS users would be better off
using an other OS.
>
> "Any company that would discipline their workers based on what sites they
> visit is living in the stone-age."
>
>I believe there is a strong case for disciplining workers based on what
>sites they visit, while at the same time, I completely understand that
>there will be cases like the original poster's wherein he essentially
>had no control over the fact that he visited an inappropriate site.
======
I responded to your comment in the comp.os.os2.advocacy group a day
or so ago. I did so because I didn't want to continue spamming this
discussion to disinterested groups.
You, however, are continuing to spam the newsgroups by responding.
This is an abuse of Usenet and as such, you should be disciplined for
improper conduct befitting your position as a network manager for
Argonne labs.
Now I'm sure you're doing this spamming "innocently," yet you've done
it, thus you deserve to be disciplined.
I fully expect you, or your superiors to discipline yourself for abusing
Usenet and doing such from your account at a governmental institution.
If this seems overly harsh, then you might look through comp.os.os2.
advocacy for my response to your response -- I don't believe you
have a clue as to what you're advocating.
And Jeff, I do hope you realize how much folks hate spammers like
yourself (and now me), but I also hope I've made my point.
I apologize to disinterested groups for continuing the spam.
Eric Larson
ela...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
Jeffrey S. Curtis
e-l...@uiuc.edu writes:
}I responded to your comment in the comp.os.os2.advocacy group a day
}or so ago. I did so because I didn't want to continue spamming this
}discussion to disinterested groups.
}
}You, however, are continuing to spam the newsgroups by responding.
And thus you've discovered the Usenet Paradox: someone screws up and
crossposts an article to way too many newsgroups, and if you want to
post a reply, you don't have a whole lot of choice but to respond to
every group with an appropriate Followup-to: header, or else people
(like me) won't see responses that are intended for them (like yours).
}I fully expect you, or your superiors to discipline yourself for abusing
}Usenet and doing such from your account at a governmental institution.
Fine, I hereby slap myself with a splintered ruler.
}If this seems overly harsh, then you might look through comp.os.os2.
}advocacy for my response to your response -- I don't believe you
}have a clue as to what you're advocating. [...]
I found your response, and I don't think you have a clue as to what my
point was - I guess I'm just not being clear enough, since several
people have contacted me with responses similar to yours. I fully
understand the difficulties (technically, legally, and sociologically)
in attempting to monitor employees as is being described in this
thread. I have my own opinions as to whether employers should be doing
so, but I choose not to let those opinions be known in this thread
because it's irrelevant. My *only* point is that I believe you're
being way too liberal with your blanket statement that "[a]ny company
that would discipline their workers based on what sites they visit is
living in the stone-age." There are many companies that have extremely
valid reasons for disciplining their workers based on such. If you
were CEO of Denny's food chain, in light of their recent problems,
would you be "living in the stone-age" if you disciplined an employee
for spending some time browsing a white supremacy Web site? As with
many things in life, the issue is figuring out where to draw the line,
and I'm arguing nothing more than the fact that drawing the line all
the way to one side and insulting anyone who tries to be more moderate
is a little extreme.
And with that, I will bow out of this thread. Please note Followup-to:.
If you want to continue the discussion on Usenet, fine, but I probably
won't respond publicly.
Denny's Manager
e-l...@uiuc.edu <Eric Larson> wrote:
>In <4nkt9t$d...@milo.mcs.anl.gov>, cur...@anl.gov (Jeffrey S. Curtis) writes:
>> "Any company that would discipline their workers based on what sites they
>> visit is living in the stone-age."
>>
>>I believe there is a strong case for disciplining workers based on what
>>sites they visit, while at the same time, I completely understand that
>>there will be cases like the original poster's wherein he essentially
>>had no control over the fact that he visited an inappropriate site.
>======
>
>I responded to your comment in the comp.os.os2.advocacy group a day
>or so ago. I did so because I didn't want to continue spamming this
>discussion to disinterested groups.
>
>You, however, are continuing to spam the newsgroups by responding.
>This is an abuse of Usenet and as such, you should be disciplined for
>improper conduct befitting your position as a network manager for
>Argonne labs.
>
>Now I'm sure you're doing this spamming "innocently," yet you've done
>it, thus you deserve to be disciplined.
>
>I fully expect you, or your superiors to discipline yourself for abusing
>Usenet and doing such from your account at a governmental institution.
>
>If this seems overly harsh, then you might look through comp.os.os2.
>advocacy for my response to your response -- I don't believe you
>have a clue as to what you're advocating.
>
>And Jeff, I do hope you realize how much folks hate spammers like
>yourself (and now me), but I also hope I've made my point.
>I apologize to disinterested groups for continuing the spam.
>
>Eric Larson
>ela...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
who appointed you God-emperor of the net??
Ell
Please delete comp.object from this thread. Thank you.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Elliott
Joseph Andrew Mounts
>Most Win3.x and Win95 users however got their PC with their
>OS installed on it, a lot of them don't know OS2, and most of them never
>even heard of Linux, so there is use in triing to convince MS users that
>they need an other OS, for a large section of MS users would be better
off
>using an other OS.
I am not anti-Linux or necessarily anti-OS/2 (in fact as soon as I get
a bigger HD, I'll be putting linux on it) but I am not so sure that the
average consumer is going to be better off with a different operating
system. A trip through the local CompUsa, or whatever computer store,
will find that at least 95% of software there will support some form of
Windows and some form of DOS. A user will be hard pressed to find many
products that utilize the "other" OS's. I understand that everything
for linux is free, but you have to know where to find it. That's
another burden on the average computer user, he has to be able to
navigate the 'net and snag the free files. Also, Joe Average will
probably be not so inclined to trust software that didn't cost him
anything (if they aren't charging for it, how good can it be). So I
see the lack of software support to be the main problem in getting
other people to use non-Microsoft OS's.
Joseph
Daniel LaBell
In article <4n7veo$m...@mailgate.lexis-nexis.com> chr...@lexis-nexis.com (Christopher C. Wood) writes:
) "Microsoft's Browser" is simply licensed from Spry, who licensed NCSA
) Mosaic from University of Illinois.
)
) Chris
) --
) Speaking only for myself, of course.
) Chris Wood chr...@lexis-nexis.com ca...@CFAnet.com
Does MS do this alot for their new projects? I have at&t dos v. 2 on a
pc around here.. and it boots w/ a message something like
'compatibility software Phoenix Techonologies ..... '
I have also seen them in version of backup and restore in the same,
and in other earlier versions of Dos.
What about scandisk, defrag, and that backup prog? arent werent they
licensed out too? I remember getting some junk mail from a company
asking if I wanted to buy their retail product.. cant remeber that exact
dos program they claimed to produce though.
--
Daniel LaBell
Susheng Wang
Rob J Meijer wrote:
>
> Foo Chuan Herng <gaun...@mailhost.net> writes:
>
> >Steve Cole wrote:
>
> >> Why should they be frustrated? Because *you* like Windows? Do you have
> >> some need to have your favourite computer and operating system in use by
> >> everyone so you can point to it and say "see, I told you so?"
> >>
> >> Normally I wouldn't even bother responding, but this is drivel.
>
> >Do MAC/LINUX/OS2 *FANATICS* <---(NOT EVERYONE) have to have everybody
> >thrashing MS and using their OS?
>
> You are looking at it the wron way, those LINUX/OS2 fanatics as you
> call them are just triing to educate all those ignorant M$ users that just
> don't realize the potential their x86 could have for sertain porposes if
> they migrated to another OS. You must face it that Linux and OS2 are the OS of choice to 100%
> of those who use it, while 90% of MS users don't even realize they have a
> choice. I think it to be the duty of both the Linux and OS2 users, and of
> the 10% of people who DID make a concience choice for MS to educate those
> 90% of people on the merits (for a lot of purposes) of other x86 Operating
> systems. Each of the serious avordable OS systems for the x86 have things
> in what they are better than the other, and i think it is important to
> educate those people who are not aware of this. OS2 and Linux users
> defenetly all are aware of this, they all made a verry concience choice
> for their OS, so there is no use in triing to convince those people to
> OS installed on it, a lot of them don't know OS2, and most of them never
> even heard of Linux, so there is use in triing to convince MS users that
> they need an other OS, for a large section of MS users would be better off
> using an other OS.
Average users don't decide operation systems; application developers
decide.
Susheng
Sidath Jayawardena
Rob J Meijer wrote:
> You are looking at it the wron way, those LINUX/OS2 fanatics as you
> call them are just triing to educate all those ignorant M$ users that just
> don't realize the potential their x86 could have for sertain porposes if
> they migrated to another OS. You must face it that Linux and OS2 are the OS of choice to 100%
Oh, how kind of them to condescend to us lemminglike Windows users and try to
lift us from savagery up to OS heaven. All I have to say can be expressed in seven
letters: use the superior OSes to guess which ones.
I actually picked Win95 to be my OS when I could've had Linux or OS/2. Why? Cause
I don't want to recompile my kernel. Cause I only had 40 megs to spare.
Enough reasons?
Jaliya
Brian Excarnate
>}Jeff, I think you missed the point. He followed a link that he thought
>}was going to take him to an innocent site, but instead, the link took him
>}to an undesirable site. He had no intention of 'wasting a few hours
>}surfing the Playboy and Penthouse web sites',
>} [...] If his employers are too naive to believe
>}that it is possible for someone to code that page wrong and it was purely
>}accidental that he was there, then why should he stay there if no one
>}will believe him? [...]
>I agree with you in terms of the original poster's quandry. My
>comments were aimed at the respondant who seemed to be implying that
>employers are "living in the Stone Age" unless they allow their
>employees to use company resources to indiscriminately surf the Web
>during business hours.
You may have misread what was the poster was "implying". And there are
many jobs where you can surf* all day long without impacting
effectiveness. Telephone technical support, for example. I find it hard
to concentrate on 2 things at once but I know a lot of people who can both
talk on the phone and do a good job and type letters, surf* the web, play
games, etc. at the same time.
I'd rather be judged on how well I perform my duties, not on if I (eek!
eek!) look at a breast (or two) at work. Oh horrors, Brian looked at a
nekkid woman! Off with his head!
Brian
* http://www.channel.co.uk/news/devil/devilwom.html
--
signature: No such file or directory
Kiran Reddy
Jeffrey E. Bazinet wrote:
> Kiran,
> you and those like you are the central impediment to progress and are
> the source of the "Software Crisis" we are in. You very much remind of
> Mainframe COBOL guys who were pissed off with the advent of the PC and
> client/server.
> An interconnected world of servers and business objects has bright
> potential for business and the world. Most importantly, we may finally
> get a handle of the process of software construction so that it is as
> smooth and easy as building a house.
> Applets, distributed Business Objects, and fast networks are all very
> healthy for the Industry as a whole. However, some would rather have
> the Microsoft 1985 model: huge client applications,platform
> dependance,very primitive objects, and total vendor dependence.
> You probably thought IBM was going to dominate for 50 years! Ha ha!
> Dan
Dan,
It is wonderfull idea to have interconnected servers, but it sure is not
supported by the present technology because I think the networks are
slow
and the applications are not designed yet to make use of the internet
fully.
I am very much sure that we will have interconected servers someday, but
some important questions have to be answered before that.
kiran.
Justin Rhys Thuryn McNutt
Bob Witham Jr. (robert.l....@state.me.us) wrote:
: e-l...@uiuc.edu@ wrote:
: > Any company that would discipline their workers based on what sites they
: > visit is living in the stone-age.
: No, just concerned that employees are accessing work-related sites.
: >
: > Jump ship, you're working for a bunch of idiots!!!!
: Easy to say when you're in school. Once you start working for a living,
: you'll find that most of the places you work at are run by idiots. You
: can't always jump ship.
Not only that, but from what I understand, UIUC is run by idiots, too. I
heard that they are throwing Circuit Theory out of their
Computer/Electrical Engineering program!
--------
If you can lead it to water and force it to drink, it isn't a horse.
Got a Linux problem? Or can you help others solve them? Visit the Linux
Common Problems page at http://vortex.cc.missouri.edu/~rhys/linux.html
Justin Rhys Thuryn McNutt
Marty Kenny (cci...@ais.net) wrote:
: Even after hours use of company resources for personal use is only
: acceptable with explicit permission
Grow up! That's not the point! He was hijacked! He was *trying* to use
company resources for something legitimate. He was redirected to
somewhere he didn't want to go. Now his bosses want to fry him. Any
questions?!?!
Anything else was off-topic anyway, so ignore it!
Radiospace
What does this thread have to do with computer strategy games? Why is it
still ongoing?
Rob Cochran
Paul Laughton wrote:
> [snip]
>
> Yes, if you are using Netscape 2.0, any site you load can
> automatically move you to any other site with no action required or
> consent needed on you part. You do not need to have Java or Java
> Script enabled for this to work.
>
> -Paul
For the record, you do not have to be running Netscape 2.0. Anything
later than 1.1 will do the same thing. For a little more technical info,
goto Netscape's site and check out the amazing Fishcam page which
includes a little discussion on using server-push and client-pull to
refresh a page and/or load a new page on contacting a site....
Matthew R. Hamilton
I noticed how many of you who have been responding to this newsgroup have
continued to neglect to edit the 'Newsgroups:' header field to remove many of
the newsgroups for which this topic is completely irrelevent. So I have since
posted a reply to this subject but only to the one group for which I belive
seems to have any sort of relevence to it "comp.security.misc". I can't belive
that so many of you seem to not have the ability to do such a simple thing to
help spare the readers of other newsgroups such as "comp.sys.ibm.pc.games
.action" or any of the "comp.sys.mac" or "comp.sys.ibm" groups etc.. from
having to put up with "unwanted" articles in those groups. In the future could
we please try to keep the discussions limited to newsgroups which are related to
the topic at hand?
--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Matthew R. Hamilton |mham...@michigan.safb.af.mil |mham...@batman.safb.af.mil |
|Systems Analyst |mham...@mcs.kent.edu |mham...@phoenix.kent.edu |
|miSoft Inc. |------------------------------------------------------------|
|Scott AFB IL USA |http://nimitz.mcs.kent.edu/~mhamilto http://www.misoft.com |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| "There is no reason in the world to fight, however there is every |
| reason in the world to know how to fight." |
| Sun Tzu _The_Art_of_War_ |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Norm
In message <31A00A...@cs.brandeis.edu> - Sidath Jayawardena
<jal...@cs.brandeis.edu>Mon, 20 May 1996 02:00:25 -0400 writes:
:>
So in essence here you are telling us that you chose Win95 because your
hardware isn't up to anything better and you don't know how to complie the
kernel, not exactly what I'd call an endorsement (BTW, I've never had to
re-complie the kernel in OS/2)
There is ONE thing that M$ does better than anyone else, and that's
marketing...and they took full advantage of the fact that the vast majority
of new computer buyers are nowhere near qualified to judge the technical
merits of an operating system. Hell, I believe it's safe to say that the
majority of those using computers for work and home have NEVER used anything
but M$ OSs...in other words not only do they lack the technical expertise,
but they also have absolutely NO experience with non-M$ OSs (not that the
lack of knowledge is going to stop many of them from singing the praises of
M$).
If M$ OSs are mediocre at best then how did they become so popular??
Well the answer to this is marketing, marketing, and unfair anti-competitive
OEM contracts (that have since been declared illegal in the US).
M$ knows that the majority of those people buying a new computer are
very likely to use whatever OS that came installed on their machine,
therefore they came up with OEM contracts that prohibited the hardware
reseller from installing any other company's OS on their machines and also
forced the customer to pay for a M$ OS license whether they wanted the
product or not. This practice has since been declared illegal in the US by
our DOJ, but for several years almost anyone who purchased a new computer
here in the US paid for a M$ OS (and very often both MSDOS and Windoze) even
if they didn't want the software (and this practice is STILL going on in
several countries in Europe and elsewhere).
M$ got to where they are today by extorting computer resellers into
paying M$ for a OS license on a 'per CPU' basis, so if you had purchased a
new system for a Linux or OS/2 system you also paid for a license for Dos
and/or Windoze...and you don't REALLY think the reseller ate the extra cost
do you??? But what I can't understand is why so many users will defend a
company who has pulled every trick in the book trying to deny them a
choice...and what I find 'laughable' is the fact that the majority of those
same defenders have NEVER even worked with those same operating systems they
claim to be inferior to the M$ fare.
What's going to be funny though is watching M$ try to 'rule' the
internet. The 'cross-platform', 'open standards and systems' thinking of
the net isn't going to be very compatible with the 'everything M$'
proprietary mindset at M$. M$ has gone to considerable time and expense
trying to 'break' any non-M$ products running on their OSs, and they use
their large marketshare to try and force everyone else to use M$ products as
the 'standard'...but this will NOT fly here on the net, and it will be VERY
interesting watching to see how this plays out (the Netsacpe vs M$ battle is
only the beginning, albeit I find the two companies to have more in common
then they'd both like to admit). IMO if M$ doesn't change their way of
thinking they're going to lose some of their standing in the business.
Their usual practices of using their consider wealth and marketshare to
squash superior technology and limit customers' choices isn't going to work
as well in an open forum like the net. I'm thrilled that M$ has set their
sites on 'ruling' the net, now it won't be too long before their users see
them for what they are along with finally realizing they actually DO have a
choice...I just pray they haven't already been brainwashed beyond repair.
...Cheers,
...Norm
Greg Pierce
Christopher C. Wood wrote:
>
> "Microsoft's Browser" is simply licensed from Spry, who licensed NCSA
> Mosaic from University of Illinois.
>
> Chris
> --
> Speaking only for myself, of course.
> Chris Wood chr...@lexis-nexis.com ca...@CFAnet.com
Isn't everyones Browser rooted in NCSA Mosaic??
--
------------------------------------------------------------
Gregory Pierce ---- Template Software, Inc.
pie...@template.com \ / 13100 Worldgate Drive
(703) 318 - 1000 \/ Suite 340
(703) 318 - 7378 fax Herndon, VA 22070-4382
http://www.template.com/
'The opinions above are mine alone...'
B Morphin
In response to Norms article #169818.
There's a million ways to talk good or bad about a product if that's
your thing.
To say Win '95 is bad is overboard.
To say Win '95 users don't know anything other then MS that's
overboard.
In fact your post was hostile and overboard.
Why would anybody believe it?
If your point was near 100% correct we would be using your O/S instead,
marketing or no marketing. Word of mouth alone ultimately rules.
You and most other '95 bashers never use Win '95's strengths and only
look at it's weaknesses and IMO a lot of the weeknesses brought up are
not important to the Avg. Joe. We as a community don't want to start
over at square 1.
BH
Matt Taylor
Norm wrote:
>
>
> So in essence here you are telling us that you chose Win95 because your
> hardware isn't up to anything better and you don't know how to complie the
> kernel, not exactly what I'd call an endorsement (BTW, I've never had to
> re-complie the kernel in OS/2)
>
Your OS is nothing more than one part of a very complex system. It is a very important part,
but if the other parts are lacking or wanting in some area, then it doesn't matter how good
your OS is. The entire system includes (among other things) the variables: ease of use,
software cost, available software, forthcoming software, stability, $/MIP, hardware costs,
upgrade costs, performance, development tools and market response. By market response I mean
how long from when something cool (e.g. Java, C++ templates, etc.) comes out for platform X
will it be on *MY* platform.
Certain users require one of the above criteria (e.g. 3D rendering performance) to be
satisfied completely, regardless of the impact on the other criteria (e.g. cost) . But by
and large, 95% of the world's users are seeking a system that gives them the "most" in each
area. Wintel appears to win more catagories than any other platform.
Win95 isn't the best OS in the world, but when you look at the system as a whole then it is,
without a doubt, the best there is.
-Matt
Alan Boritz
Richard Burr <bu...@nzdri.org.nz> wrote:
>On a recent visit to a bookmarked site I was hijacked to an undesirable
>location. How is this possible? Has someone been messing with the bookmarks
>or has someone at the server end re-directed me to their favourite page? Is
>there a possibility of me being on the end of someone else's Netscape 2.0
>Java hack job?
>As a result I am facing disciplinary action from my near internet-illiterate
>bosses. It is their contention that the only way to come across undesirable
>images or material is to actively seek it out. Any help appreciated!
Find another job. You work for morons. They trust their perception of the
technology, more than you. That kind of problem won't get better. ;(
Paul Gary Ivancic
On Mon, 20 May 1996, Kiran Reddy wrote:
> Dan,
>
> It is wonderfull idea to have interconnected servers, but it sure is not
> supported by the present technology because I think the networks are
> slow
> and the applications are not designed yet to make use of the internet
> fully.
> I am very much sure that we will have interconected servers someday, but
> some important questions have to be answered before that.
>
> kiran.
>
>
What has all this got to do with Bill Gates?????!
__________________________________________________________________________
E-Mail: p...@ecr.mu.oz.au
p...@ee.mu.oz.au
Web site : http://www.ecr.mu.oz.au/~pgi/index.html
The site includes : CYBER GAMES and the
A.D.F
bme...@bruce.cs.monash.edu.au
jagr...@aol.com (Jagrulz1) writes:
>Now to Microsoft's credit, they are at least supporting the real standards
>like Java, Real Audio, and Netscape's HTML extensions.
That's a very interesting definition of "real standards". I have never had
Netscape's breaking of the HTML standard referred to in that way before.
Bernie
--
==============================================================================
I just switched back yo my good old home system. I might have lost articles
in the process, and there might be stuff that is not set up properly yet.
Please bear with me...... ;-)
Bruno Widmann
B Morphin wrote:
> To say Win '95 users don't know anything other then MS that's
> overboard.
Most M$ users I know (not all) have'nt ever used an alternative to their
outdated Dos/Windows/(95) stuff.
> In fact your post was hostile and overboard.
That's hostile too.
> Why would anybody believe it?
Why not?
> You and most other '95 bashers never use Win '95's strengths and only
> look at it's weaknesses and IMO a lot of the weeknesses brought up are
> not important to the Avg. Joe. We as a community don't want to start
> over at square 1.
I think the only strenght of '95 is M$ good marketing, and how could you
ever use that?.
IMHO you do the same that you think '95 bashers do: You never use other
Os's strenghts (not even install / try them), fall into prejustice (you
don't have to start over at square 1 for using linux), and overjudge
some weeknesses (no M$-software..oh dear)...
--
Bruno Widmann
FH - TKS Salzburg.
bwid...@tks.fh-sbg.ac.at
Joseph Andrew Mounts
In <31A436...@tks.fh-sbg.ac.at> Bruno Widmann
This is an honest question. What software does linux have going for it?
To me, that's the deciding factor in choosing an OS. And I mean
commercial quality software, not bargain-bin style. I am highly (who
isn't) addicted to computer games, and if linux either a) can't run
Win/Dos software or b) doesn't have good quality games made for linux,
then, well, I will probably never switch, or even try linux. Any
flames will be promptly ignored.
Joseph
DOYAMA JASON
In article <4o1sgk$1...@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>,
Well if you're more into games then linux probably isn't for you.
Most people (at least I know) that run Linux becaust they have
workstations at school or at work and like running the same software at
home. That way you dont' run into that ls=dir and rm=del stuff by going
from DOS to UNIX all the time.
Linux is more of a 'hacker' OS. It's fun to play with and it's
satisfying when it works. But if you don't like spending a weekend to
install a new OS (which is what usually happens with Linux), and if you
think a kernel is where popcorn comes from, then I'd pass Linux and go
back to y'old DOS or Win95.
There is a Linux version of Doom and Quake if that eases your soul.
Jason Doyama
--
WWW-page http://www.ecf.toronto.edu/~doyama/
email doy...@skule.ecf.toronto.edu
Mark Komarinski
bme...@bruce.cs.monash.edu.au wrote:
: jagr...@aol.com (Jagrulz1) writes:
:
: >Now to Microsoft's credit, they are at least supporting the real standards
: >like Java, Real Audio, and Netscape's HTML extensions.
:
: That's a very interesting definition of "real standards". I have never had
: Netscape's breaking of the HTML standard referred to in that way before.
What's the RFC for Real Audio?
-Mark
--
- Mark Komarinski - koma...@craft.camp.clarkson.edu
Linux: Because a PC is a terrible thing to waste.
Check out comp.os.linux.* for more info.
Brian Wheeler
In article <4o2g5e$n...@library.erc.clarkson.edu>,
Brian Wheeler
Jeffrey L. Straszheim
Please take comp.software-eng off of responses to this thread.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey L. Straszheim <mailto:jef...@shadow.net>
Systems Engineer
CPT of South Florida <http://www.cpt-florida.com>
----------------------------------------------------------------
Any opinions or recommendations are those
of the author and not of his employer.
Matthew R. Hamilton
Paul Gary Ivancic wrote:
>
> On Mon, 20 May 1996, Kiran Reddy wrote:
> > Dan,
> >
> > It is wonderfull idea to have interconnected servers, but it sure is not
> > supported by the present technology because I think the networks are
> > slow
> > and the applications are not designed yet to make use of the internet
> > fully.
> > I am very much sure that we will have interconected servers someday, but
> > some important questions have to be answered before that.
> >
> > kiran.
> >
> >
>
> What has all this got to do with Bill Gates?????!
>
I would also liketo know what redeeming value this thread "Bill Gates sucks"
has to do with any of the comp.security newsgroups. I thought these lame
flame wars would only stay in the ibm, mac, pc and windows "misc" groups, I
guess I should have known better than for a majority of people to be
intelligent enough to edit the "Newsgroups:" header to eliminate the
inappropriate newsgroups.
--
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Matthew R. Hamilton |mham...@michigan.safb.af.mil |mham...@mcs.kent.edu |
|Systems Analyst |mham...@batman.safb.af.mil |mham...@phoenix.kent.edu|
|miSoft Inc. |--------------------------------------------------------|
|Scott AFB IL USA |(WWW_URL) http://nimitz.mcs.kent.edu/~mhamilto |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| "There is no reason in the world to fight, however there is every |
| reason in the world to know how to fight." |
| Sun Tzu _The_Art_of_War_ |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Dean
In article <4nh9fl$7...@sun.sirius.com>, pa...@laughton.com says...
>
>Richard Burr <bu...@nzdri.org.nz> wrote:
>
>>On a recent visit to a bookmarked site I was hijacked to an undesirable
>>location. How is this possible? Has someone been messing with the
>>bookmarks or has someone at the server end re-directed me to their
>>favourite page? Is there a possibility of me being on the end of someone
>>else's Netscape 2.0 Java hack job?
>
>>As a result I am facing disciplinary action from my
>>near internet-illiterate bosses. It is their contention that the only
>>way to come across undesirable images or material is to actively seek it
>>out. Any help appreciated!
>
>
>Scott Adams would enjoy this story. Who knows, it could end up in
>Dilbert cartoon.
>
>Yes, if you are using Netscape 2.0, any site you load can
>automatically move you to any other site with no action required or
>consent needed on you part. You do not need to have Java or Java
>Script enabled for this to work.
Using the history file, you could show the boss that you went to the original
right place. Unless of course, you just got caught and are trying to cover
your butt :)
--
Dean Robb (WB: Raz1) (Hawaii: Robb)
PC-Easy
On-site computer services and consulting
PCE...@Norfolk.Infi.Net
Dean
In article <4nkt9t$d...@milo.mcs.anl.gov>, cur...@anl.gov says...
>
>may...@jmg.com (J. Maynard Gelinas) writes:
>} Absolutely correct. *BUT* I don't think the original poster had
>}suggested that he was abusing a corporate privilege, but is under threat
>}of punishment for something he has no control over.
>} [long explanation snipped]
>
>J., I agree with you fully, and in fact, I have used many of the same
>arguments you listed when I have been asked by my management to produce
>lists of users who were accessing "inappropriate" Web sites. But please
>note that my article to which you responded was *not* directed at the
>original poster (who obviously has a serious problem with his apparently
>cluefully-challenged employer); rather, my comments were directed at the
>fellow who made this blanket statement:
>
> "Any company that would discipline their workers based on what sites they
> visit is living in the stone-age."
>
>sites they visit, while at the same time, I completely understand that
>there will be cases like the original poster's wherein he essentially
>had no control over the fact that he visited an inappropriate site.
In the solutions department on this issue (crossposted to hell, but relevant to
all), I recently had a company that was concerned with inappropriate net access
consult with me. What we did as a cheap and easy fix was to install SurfWatch
on their systems. Works for adults same as for kids. I DON'T know if it (or
it's competitors) will stop a hijack, we haven't incurred that situation yet,
but it DOES stop the intentional misuse AND completely avoids the
"boss-over-the-shoulder/spying" problems.
Dean
In article <4nl37j$8...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>, EricLarson says...
>
>I responded to your comment in the comp.os.os2.advocacy group a day
>or so ago. I did so because I didn't want to continue spamming this
>discussion to disinterested groups.
>
>You, however, are continuing to spam the newsgroups by responding.
>This is an abuse of Usenet and as such, you should be disciplined for
>improper conduct befitting your position as a network manager for
>Argonne labs.
>
>Now I'm sure you're doing this spamming "innocently," yet you've done
>it, thus you deserve to be disciplined.
>
>I fully expect you, or your superiors to discipline yourself for abusing
>Usenet and doing such from your account at a governmental institution.
>
>If this seems overly harsh, then you might look through comp.os.os2.
>advocacy for my response to your response -- I don't believe you
>have a clue as to what you're advocating.
>
>And Jeff, I do hope you realize how much folks hate spammers like
>yourself (and now me), but I also hope I've made my point.
>
>I apologize to disinterested groups for continuing the spam.
>
>Eric Larson
>ela...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
>
Whoa, hoss...get a clue! It's an issue facing every single employee of a
company that uses the net, and as such is NOT a spam (unless posted to the sex
newsgroups) but an issue of concern to the VAST majority of users. You, sir,
are the one needing to discipline his UseNet usage.
bong
I think windows 95 is the bBruno Widmann wrote:
>
> B Morphin wrote:
> > To say Win '95 users don't know anything other then MS that's
> > overboard.
>
> Most M$ users I know (not all) have'nt ever used an alternative to their
> outdated Dos/Windows/(95) stuff.
>
> > In fact your post was hostile and overboard.
> That's hostile too.
>
> > Why would anybody believe it?
> Why not?
>
> > You and most other '95 bashers never use Win '95's strengths and only
> > look at it's weaknesses and IMO a lot of the weeknesses brought up are
> > not important to the Avg. Joe. We as a community don't want to start
> > over at square 1.
>
> I think the only strenght of '95 is M$ good marketing, and how could you
> ever use that?.
> IMHO you do the same that you think '95 bashers do: You never use other
> Os's strenghts (not even install / try them), fall into prejustice (you
> don't have to start over at square 1 for using linux), and overjudge
> some weeknesses (no M$-software..oh dear)...
>
> Bruno Widmann
> FH - TKS Salzburg.
use. I live by it.
Jeff
next and try it out. if you don't know what nextstep is you don't need
to ask.
Allied Access, Inc.
> bong <nicolas...@hal9k.com> wrote in article
<31A64D...@hal9k.com>...
> I think windows 95 is the bBruno Widmann wrote:
> >
> > B Morphin wrote:
> > > To say Win '95 users don't know anything other then MS that's
> > > overboard.
> >
> > Most M$ users I know (not all) have'nt ever used an alternative to
their
> > outdated Dos/Windows/(95) stuff.
> >
This is interesting. Why should they use soemthing else if their software
is doing what they need? That is after all the best definition of good
software, it does what you need.
> > > In fact your post was hostile and overboard.
> > That's hostile too.
> >
> > > Why would anybody believe it?
> > Why not?
> >
> > > You and most other '95 bashers never use Win '95's strengths and
only
> > > look at it's weaknesses and IMO a lot of the weeknesses brought up
are
> > > not important to the Avg. Joe. We as a community don't want to start
> > > over at square 1.
> >
> > I think the only strenght of '95 is M$ good marketing, and how could
you
> > ever use that?.
> > IMHO you do the same that you think '95 bashers do: You never use
other
> > Os's strenghts (not even install / try them), fall into prejustice
(you
> > don't have to start over at square 1 for using linux), and overjudge
> > some weeknesses (no M$-software..oh dear)...
hhhmmmmmm.....The truth is that for the average home user Windows 95 is
the system of choice. Why??? Support!!!!!! there are ALOT of places you
can go to and people as well with a wealth of experience for Windows95,
this cannot be said for any other operating system.
To say that the almight buck is Windows 95 only strength is lunacy.
Windows 95 has a ggod chance of finally creating a standard for software
development. No more looking for special sound or video drivers for EACH
program. Also the simpicity fo Windows 95 makes it ideal for new users.
As for the issue of TRUE multi-tasking. Lets get real, NO average user has
a need for TRUE mutitasking. Most users only use one at the most two
programs at a time.
And lets not forget 95s biggest strength, GOOD backward compatibilty.
I have been in computer ( especiall home systems) for 18 years, since the
first such systems came out. That is longer than many of you have been
alive. I have seen the fads in this industry come and go. The truth is
that Windows 95 is a good idea and will become the industry standard.
There is no stopping it.
Ed
Larry Hadley
Sidath Jayawardena (jal...@cs.brandeis.edu) wrote:
: Rob J Meijer wrote:
: Oh, how kind of them to condescend to us lemminglike Windows users and try to
: lift us from savagery up to OS heaven. All I have to say can be expressed in seven
: letters: use the superior OSes to guess which ones.
: I actually picked Win95 to be my OS when I could've had Linux or OS/2. Why? Cause
: I don't want to recompile my kernel. Cause I only had 40 megs to spare.
: Enough reasons?
<laugh> If you only have 40MB to spare, why are you sticking with
Win95?? Win95 is a *HUGE* o/s - I installed the base OS/2 o/s on much
less than that.
--
-- DLH "Warhammer" lha...@knet.flemingc.on.ca
Visit my home-page, get HTMLStrip and PMove:
http://www.knet.flemingc.on.ca/~lhadley/Profile.html
Microsoft Network is prohibited from redistributing this work in any form,
in whole or in part. Copyright, Larry Hadley, 1996. Please send notices of
violation to lha...@knet.flemingc.on.ca and Postm...@microsoft.com
Unknown
"Allied Access, Inc." <sup...@intrnet.net> wrote:
>Why??? Support!!!!!! there are ALOT of places you
>can go to and people as well with a wealth of experience for Windows95,
>this cannot be said for any other operating system.
Are you awake?
I work on mainframe systems. I have 6 volumes of error message and return codes
on my desk. Windows message manuals consists of a couple of dozen pages. If
there is a problem IBM can't solve then I have several hundred exit points to
intercept the "error" with. I have dump facilities, tracing facilities,
monitoring facilities. Microsoft has a very long way to go. True the avg home
user wouldn't know where to start. BUT, Microsoft is also pushing this as a
BUSINESS solution. So far they just can't cut it.
Their answer when there IS a problem. Call someone else.
>I have been in computer ( especiall home systems) for 18 years, since the
seems to be only home systems. PS, I've worked on PC's longer than you.
>first such systems came out. That is longer than many of you have been
>alive. I have seen the fads in this industry come and go. The truth is
>that Windows 95 is a good idea and will become the industry standard.
>There is no stopping it.
>Ed
Ed in case you haven't heard, Windows 95 is the stepping stone to NT. Once MS
gets rid of Windows 3.1, what do you think the life expectancy of 95 will be. I
Sorry Ed but I just can't drop everything and recompile all the apps on my
systems every time Billy Bob decides to create yet another "NEW" standard.
T_C...@lvc.edu
> Windows 95 has a ggod chance of finally creating a standard for software
> development. No more looking for special sound or video drivers for EACH
> program. Also the simpicity fo Windows 95 makes it ideal for new users.
>
> As for the issue of TRUE multi-tasking. Lets get real, NO average user has
> a need for TRUE mutitasking. Most users only use one at the most two
> programs at a time.
>
> And lets not forget 95s biggest strength, GOOD backward compatibilty.
I realize that you're mainly speaking of the PC side of the industry
here, but don't forget that a "standard for software development" has
existed on the Macintosh ever since it was created. The PC, in it's
current architecture, cannot really ever gain a true "Mac-Like" feel
to it, since the PC has not changed internally (except for the Pentium
versus Intel factor) for several years. PC has not really evolved as
the Mac did, but has simply adapted to the evolution of other
"species."
What's this about most users having, at the most, two applications
open at once? Most people I know usually have at *least* two, if not
five or six. Don't underestimate what the average-joe user needs;
he'll probably surprise you.
This isn't meant to be flaming you or anything like that; all I'm
saying is that many times PC users forget that other alternatives do
exist.
-Jeff
Jeff Frey
Lebanon Valley College
j_f...@lvc.edu
Amdiranfani
} > As for the issue of TRUE multi-tasking. Lets get real, NO average user has
} > a need for TRUE mutitasking. Most users only use one at the most two
} > programs at a time.
} >
} What's this about most users having, at the most, two applications
} open at once? Most people I know usually have at *least* two, if not
} five or six. Don't underestimate what the average-joe user needs;
} he'll probably surprise you.
}
} -Jeff
TRUE multitasking is not the same thing as having several applications
open at once. 7.5, with its cooperative multitasking handles multiple
applications quite well, with little or no bandwidth starvation (if I am
doing a long ftp download, why do I want several other applications to be
cycling idly, stealing time?)
Amdiranfani
<<Reports of my death have been greatly understated>>
Eddie
B Morphin (q...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: In response to Norms article #169818.
: There's a million ways to talk good or bad about a product if that's
: your thing.
: To say Win '95 is bad is overboard.
Not really - it's an improvement (sp?) on Win 3.x which was truely awful!
: To say Win '95 users don't know anything other then MS that's
: overboard.
True!
: In fact your post was hostile and overboard.
: Why would anybody believe it?
: If your point was near 100% correct we would be using your O/S instead,
: marketing or no marketing. Word of mouth alone ultimately rules.
: You and most other '95 bashers never use Win '95's strengths and only
: look at it's weaknesses and IMO a lot of the weeknesses brought up are
: not important to the Avg. Joe. We as a community don't want to start
: over at square 1.
Well, I must admit that I am a Win95 'basher' as you put it. I know it's
strengths and by god do I know it's weaknesses. Word of mouth does rule, but
not in the way you make out. It's more like Chinese whispers! Win95 has a
long, long way to go before it cuts the mustard - with me anyway.
Avg. Joe on the street doesn't always realise how badly he is being ripped
off by bad programming and sneeky (But effective) M$ advertising! I've not
used NT so I can't comment on that but *why* does it need 32Meg to run to it's
full extent? That is a massive sign of badly programmed bloated software that
is so common to M$. I would still like to use NT though. I try to keep an
open mind about these things.
Win95 is better - but M$ have a hell of a long way to go before they can get
me even remotely interested in one of their OS's
: BH
--
***************************************************************************
* Tim Lewis (a.k.a Eddie) * "You think I'm crazy! *
* * You wouldn't know what crazy was *
* T.L...@bton.ac.uk * if Charles Manson was sitting on *
* * your front porch eating fruit *
* No Car, No money, No prospects * loops!" *
* NO WORRIES!!! * You can't bring me down - *
* * Suicidal Tendancies *
***************************************************************************
DON L. TRUMPS
I have a supply of NEW Adaptec 1510 scsi controllers for $35.00 each.
Included: 50 pin internal scsi cable w/connectors for 2 devices,
Internal "Y" power cable, Free surprise gift, Free shipping.
Cash, Check, or Money Order accepted.
Don Trumps
Box 577
Louisville, Co. 80027
303-417-7481
Greg Pierce
Slimer wrote:
> I work on mainframe systems. I have 6 volumes of error message and return codes
> on my desk. Windows message manuals consists of a couple of dozen pages. If
> there is a problem IBM can't solve then I have several hundred exit points to
> intercept the "error" with. I have dump facilities, tracing facilities,
> monitoring facilities. Microsoft has a very long way to go. True the avg home
> user wouldn't know where to start. BUT, Microsoft is also pushing this as a
> BUSINESS solution. So far they just can't cut it.
> Their answer when there IS a problem. Call someone else.
>
Ha, and how often do you find the answer you need in those volumes, how long does it take,
how many times has IBM offered a response which worked, how many times did you have to call
them before you got a person who actually had a clue.
I won't say that Microsoft is better because they aren't, but you're being very unrealistic in your claim.
Old Salt
{This is a usenet posting, carbon copied to poster, There is no need
to reply to this E-Mail unless you don't see it in the newsgroup you
posted to}dont...@ix.netcom.com(DON L. TRUMPS) had this to say about
ADAPTEC 1510 SCSI CONTROLLER (NEW) W/INT. CABLE $35.00:
->I have a supply
spam and due to it I have added you to my kile file.
___ ___
______ ______ | | | | ______
=====[______] =====[______] | | | | [______]======
****************old-...@worldnet.att.net**************************
*"Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose" Sung by *
* J. Joplin *
* I rather be right, then Politically Correct *
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
><Canter & Siegel the Bottom feeders of "Green Card" spammers>
k...@together.net
In <sydde-28059...@sydde.seanet.com>, sy...@seanet.com (Amdiranfani) writes:
;>(if I am
;>doing a long ftp download, why do I want several other applications to be
;>cycling idly, stealing time?)
You are 100% correct. I want to do work in my other 4-6 sessions while
that damned slow download is goin on. Give true multitasking! Hell, I even
read the Internet stuff while downloading.
Keith R. Williams
k...@together.net
Unknown
Greg Pierce <pie...@template.com> wrote:
>Ha, and how often do you find the answer you need in those volumes, how long does it take,
>how many times has IBM offered a response which worked, how many times did you have to call
>them before you got a person who actually had a clue.
>I won't say that Microsoft is better because they aren't, but you're being very unrealistic in your claim.
In the number of years I've been in programming and now Tech Support, I have
never had to personally call IBM for a problem on the mainframe. You can take
this one of two ways: Either the mainframe and assorted software works so good
that I never ever have a problem (ha). Or. The aforementioned documentation is
doing the job MicroSoft with all the phone support in the the world can't.
I have looked up thousands of error messages. I have coded several exits to
resolve problems. In most cases fixing a problem is a simple programming change.
AND it didn't bring the system down. In COBOL (yes the wordy yet readable, old
yet stable, standardized and well supported language that everyone wants to do
away with), The only place I've seen that could possibly bring the CICS region
down, is writing to linkage area that doesn't exist. And even that is being
fixed. Windows and C have a very long way to go to be this good. What ever
benifit you think you could gain from converting to C is lost in the cost of
problems that just shouldn't exist.
antirush
ENGLISH PLEASE...DO YOU SPEAK IT !????
-------------------------------------------------
You Can't Polish A Turd..It's STILL A Turd...
-------------------------------------------------
Kevin J. Lang
In article <31ad31be...@news.concentric.net>, anti...@cris.com
(antirush) wrote:
Which dialect do you speak? Everything here seems like English to me?
Maybe a spelling error or two, but it's still English. Of course, here it
doesn't matter what language one speaks, what matters is the language you
type. :)
Kevin
--
Harlan W. Stockman
T_C...@LVC.EDU wrote:
> versus Intel factor) for several years. PC has not really evolved as
> the Mac did, but has simply adapted to the evolution of other
> "species."
An interesting comment. Since its inception, the Mac has adopted
many traits of other "species" -- cursors on the keyboard, a PC-like
keyboard, a PC-like separate monitor, the PCI bus, PCI graphics cards
slightly redesigned from PC cards, subdirectories, and so on.
I remember many features of the early Macs, since I almost bought one in
1984, when they had very limited connectivity to anything, had no
real subdirectory structure, and had an idiotic keyboard. Remember those
funky black-and-white 512*348 pixel screens?
--
Harlan W. Stockman hws...@swcp.com hws...@sandia.gov
Michael Blair Mathers
Daniel LaBell (dla...@pcs.cnu.edu) wrote:
: ) --
: ) Speaking only for myself, of course.
: ) Chris Wood chr...@lexis-nexis.com ca...@CFAnet.com
: Does MS do this alot for their new projects? I have at&t dos v. 2 on a
: pc around here.. and it boots w/ a message something like
: 'compatibility software Phoenix Techonologies ..... '
: I have also seen them in version of backup and restore in the same,
: and in other earlier versions of Dos.
: What about scandisk, defrag, and that backup prog? arent werent they
: licensed out too? I remember getting some junk mail from a company
: asking if I wanted to buy their retail product.. cant remeber that exact
: dos program they claimed to produce though.
Yes.. Symantec.. (or Norton) all licensed... DoubleSpace.. licensed.
and I'm sure others....
-Mike M
Tim Hockin
: saying is that many times PC users forget that other alternatives do
: exist. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^
I think this is the point of this thread (which has been far too long).
I started off as one of teh Masses, knowing ONLY windows. Win95
arrived..cool. I liked it. I tried Linux, very cool, I liked it. They
do DIFFERENT things. No OS is teh 'total answer'. I confess to being an
MS basher. I have come to learn that UNIXes do it for me. IRIX is
great, sunOS is GREAT, Linux is GREAT. So great that I am starting to
collect Unix machines. I will soon have a BSD, Linux and Sun at home.
soon a DEC and an SGI I hope, and eventually an HP.
My manager is an NT nut. He likes what it does for him. that is great.
I have been in teh NT v UNIX war, and confess NO ONE is going to win
based on teh OS. The market will decide.
People just need to know that other OS's are not as daunting as they may
seem. There are alternatives.
--
Tim Hockin
tho...@ais.net
Soon anyone who's not on the World Wide Web will qualify for a government
subsidy for the home-pageless
--Scott Adams
Lee Blevins
Whoa nellie...
Hold up here a minute..
Harlan W. Stockman <hws...@swcp.com> wrote:
> T_C...@LVC.EDU wrote:
>
>
> > versus Intel factor) for several years. PC has not really evolved as
> > the Mac did, but has simply adapted to the evolution of other
> > "species."
>
> An interesting comment. Since its inception, the Mac has adopted
> many traits of other "species" -- cursors on the keyboard, a PC-like
> keyboard, a PC-like separate monitor,
The pc invented the speparate monitor? Since when? I was using a
commadore before there was a PC..
> slightly redesigned from PC cards, subdirectories, and so on.
PC's invented subdirectories? Sounds like we needs some fact checking
before we write here pardner...
> I remember many features of the early Macs, since I almost bought one in
> 1984, when they had very limited connectivity to anything, had no
> real subdirectory structure, and had an idiotic keyboard. Remember those
> funky black-and-white 512*348 pixel screens?
Remember Hercules Mono cards? Amber screens? Color monitors didn't
become popular on both systems until after their introduction. And unix
systems didn't use color monitors for some time after that. Does that
make them inferior?
Robert Gelb
Followup-To: comp.sys.mac.system,comp.sys.laptops,comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.misc,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.hp.hpux,comp.sys.amiga.advocacy,comp.software-eng,comp.secu
r
References: <3193cc58....@piranha.dev.prodigy.net> <4n2bhq$c...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> <3194FE...@mailhost.net> <Pine.GSO.3.93.960516093850.20678C-100000@mercury> <319B57...@mailhost.net> <4nkq15$8...@news.xs4all.nl><3193cc58.173315554@piranha
.dev.prodigy.net> <4n2bhq$c...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> <3194FE...@mailhost.net> <Pine.GSO.3.93.960516093850.20678C-100000@mercury> <319B57...@mailhost.net> <4nkq15$8...@news.xs4all.nl> <31A00A...@cs.brandeis.edu> <4nvan2$2...@clarknet.clark.net> <
4nvnn7$b...@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com> <31A436...@tks.fh-sbg.ac.at>
Distribution:
Bruno Widmann (bwid...@tks.fh-sbg.ac.at) wrote:
: B Morphin wrote:
: Most M$ users I know (not all) have'nt ever used an alternative to their
: outdated Dos/Windows/(95) stuff.
I've used OS/2 for a while, but crashes drove everybody in the
office nuts. Networking (before Warp Connect you had to purchase
LAN Manager) was not up to par. You could not run any major games that
were big at the time, such as DOOM. To change a video driver, you
practically had to reinstall entire OS. Warp was not very intuitive. The
root directory kept getting copied over each other. All the stuff from
the Bonus Pack looked like the software that came with Windows 3.0. The
bland colors were from year 1990.
Then Windows95 came along. Everybody happily installed it on their
computers. It recognized the network right off the bat and now playing
DOOM or DukeNukem over the network is a breeze. Or doing anything else
for that matter.
: > You and most other '95 bashers never use Win '95's strengths and only
: > look at it's weaknesses and IMO a lot of the weeknesses brought up are
: > not important to the Avg. Joe. We as a community don't want to start
: > over at square 1.
: I think the only strenght of '95 is M$ good marketing, and how could you
: ever use that?.
: IMHO you do the same that you think '95 bashers do: You never use other
: Os's strenghts (not even install / try them), fall into prejustice (you
: don't have to start over at square 1 for using linux), and overjudge
: some weeknesses (no M$-software..oh dear)...
Windows95 has plenty of strengths. Ease of use is the most
important one. Anything you did before, you can do now faster. For a
person like myself who has to work with the computer everyday for long
periods of time, the new feature with the menus, where you don't have to
hold it down was great. Another strength is the fact that all the top
software today is produced for Windows95. I don't see wordperfect for
OS/2 6.x or Delphi. But the coolest feature of Win95 is that it lets you
do things your own way.
--
Robert Gelb
Senior Systems Analyst
Data Express
Garden Grove, California USA
(714)895-8832
Benjamin Smith
Allied Access, Inc. wrote:
>
> > bong <nicolas...@hal9k.com> wrote in article
> <31A64D...@hal9k.com>...
> > I think windows 95 is the bBruno Widmann wrote:
> > >
> > > B Morphin wrote:
> > > > overboard.
> > >
> their
> > > outdated Dos/Windows/(95) stuff.
> > >
>
> is doing what they need? That is after all the best definition of good
> software, it does what you need.
>
I think the point made is that it works, but where are the alternatives?
They don't know of the alternatives. When they come to know, and see the
features in other systems, they may start considering other platforms.
> > > > In fact your post was hostile and overboard.
> > > That's hostile too.
> > >
> > > > Why would anybody believe it?
> > > Why not?
> > >
> > > > You and most other '95 bashers never use Win '95's strengths and
> only
> > > > look at it's weaknesses and IMO a lot of the weeknesses brought up
> are
> > > > not important to the Avg. Joe. We as a community don't want to start
> > > > over at square 1.
> > >
> > > I think the only strenght of '95 is M$ good marketing, and how could
> you
> > > ever use that?.
> > > IMHO you do the same that you think '95 bashers do: You never use
> other
> > > Os's strenghts (not even install / try them), fall into prejustice
> (you
> > > don't have to start over at square 1 for using linux), and overjudge
> > > some weeknesses (no M$-software..oh dear)...
>
> hhhmmmmmm.....The truth is that for the average home user Windows 95 is
> the system of choice. Why??? Support!!!!!! there are ALOT of places you
> can go to and people as well with a wealth of experience for Windows95,
> this cannot be said for any other operating system.
I don't agree with this at all. Win95 is preloaded onto machines and
people use it because of that. It's not the case that many people have
tried OS/2, Mac, Linux, etc. and then *chose* Win95. I think many people
who want the most straightfoward, minimized technical experience would
choose Macintosh, Win95 is still a hybrid and still includes DOS paths
and is overly technical at times. I use both systems. I did not know Mac
until earlier this year. I did not choose Win95 and most of the people I
know who use it, either in their homes or at work, used it because
somebody decided to put it on their machines. I, by far, choose almost
anything else but Win95. For me, for a new heavily redesigned rewritten
systems, it offered nothing fresh to people who are familiar with other
platforms, although it *is* fresh to Win 3.x users.
>
> To say that the almight buck is Windows 95 only strength is lunacy.
> Windows 95 has a ggod chance of finally creating a standard for software
> development. No more looking for special sound or video drivers for EACH
> program. Also the simpicity fo Windows 95 makes it ideal for new users.
>
Again I disagree. I like the crossplatform solutions and not
standardizing around a system. That takes away choice. I like the way
OS/2 and Mac work better at the GUI level, I don't find Win anywhere
near as simple as Mac's GUI which it, to a large degree, is based on. AS
far as PnP, Macs had an excellent implementation of it for years, Win is
not now, and for a while will not be, the standard for ease of
installation and running software. In fact, hopefully, the Apple/IBM/Cli
creation Open Doc will have people working with cross platform parts and
away from these huge, resource hungry applications.
>
> And lets not forget 95s biggest strength, GOOD backward compatibilty.
>At this point Mac OS 7.5.3 is better, may not be with Mac OS 8.
> I have been in computer ( especiall home systems) for 18 years, since the
> first such systems came out. That is longer than many of you have been
> alive. I have seen the fads in this industry come and go. The truth is
> that Windows 95 is a good idea and will become the industry standard.
> There is no stopping it.
No. Win95 may be moving to WinNT. MS has stated that Win95 platform may
be short lived.
I think Win95 is something of a fad as is Microsoft. I think that when
people find out there are alternatives that work as well, if not better,
and can get usable software for their systems, that they will be
attracted to other systems. Also, there are features that are on the
current Mac Gui and OS/2 that Win95 lacks and Win95 will really be
behind when the new OS/2 and Mac OS 8 are released. I also think that
people will get tired of MS monopolistic tendecies and aspirations and
general mean spiritedness in trying to own most computer markets, and
look elsewhere. Also, I think that leapfrogs from the innovators may be
cross platform and eventually freeze out MS, and its happening now. The
Network PC is an example that does not include Microsoft and there are
other internet type of alliances that include IBM, Motorola, Apple, Sun
and other industry heavyweights that are a bit tired, to say the least,
of Microsoft domination. MS will be just another software manufacturer
one day, though not anytime soon.
Bill Gates is the now whiz kid turned middle aged billionaire with a
false nerd image. He's a ruthless businessman. He will be replaced when
the next cocky whiz kid get's his product out and through marketing and
certain fortuitous situations will get hugh market share and dominance
of certain markets. People, actually, are already getting tired of him
and his visions. Well as a visionary, at least in terms of innovations
that will impact the computer user as a user, he is an emporer with no
clothes, and he will be exposed.
Ben S.
>
> Ed
Ben S.
Stefan 'Stetson' Skoglund
tja Sun did sell color systems in 1985 i think.
They weren't cheap...
Either way the quality of the color screen was inferior to
the current black-and-white screens of that time...
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Stefan 'Stetson' Skoglund I |
sp2s...@ida.his.se I |
<http://www.his.se/ida/~sp2stes1/> I _____/0\_____
I ____________O(.)O___________
H\"ogskolan i Sk\"ovde, Sverige I I-+-I O I-+-I
I
I Viggen with two Rb04
---------------------------------------------------------------------
JamesP
>-Mike M
MSav, licenced, MWav, licensed, nearly every external utility shipped
with MS-DOS 5+, licensed....
JamesP
Terry Manning
Im undergoing a nightmare trying to upgrade seven Pcs...epson equity
486dx/33 with Intel odpr100 processors...and failing to light up the
motherboard.... Calls to epson and intel brought no relief..and after
popping 1500 big ones to run internet software on these turkeys..I
find ny resources dwindling away before our Internet cafe opens.
Any help with the matter will be appreciated...Thanks. email me if you
can.
T.R.Manning, Technical manager CTS
ter...@ix.netcom.com
Jaakan M. Shorter
Bill Gates knows very little about the computer world
he never wrote DOS just add to it. He was a small time hacker and will
always be a small time hacker.
Robert_Barton
In <4ord8h$2...@news.ais.net>, tho...@eagle.ais.net (Tim Hockin) writes:
>
> I have been in teh NT v UNIX war, and confess NO ONE is going to win
> based on teh OS. The market will decide.
What does "teh" stand for??
Nicole Bianco
>
> Bill Gates knows very little about the computer world
> he never wrote DOS just add to it. He was a small time hacker and will
> always be a small time hacker.
>
>
So.. he is a multi-millionaire hacker.. not a bad job..
But looking at Bill as a manager and entrepreneur (which is actually where
he made his bucks IMHO):
I am reading "Microsoft Secrets" (ISBN 0-02-874048-3), a book which details
(as best possible) the inner working of MS, their business strategies, and
management style, and am finding it very interesting. I would recommend it
to anyone in a supervisory or management position in a software
organization.
One of the most interesting parts is the results of their employee
satisfaction survey (appendix 4). It shows the % of staff who are
DISSATISFIED and SATISFIED with around 30 aspects of their work, education,
and environment. I wonder how many organizations can come up with the
positive % MS does, and still produce software which (for its functions and
size) is as stable as it is, satisfies the market place, and creates a
'legal' monopoly?
Anyone else reading this? Comments?
Harlan W. Stockman
Jaakan M. Shorter wrote:
>
> Bill Gates knows very little about the computer world
> he never wrote DOS just add to it. He was a small time hacker and will
> always be a small time hacker.
I don't happen to like the man, but he is brilliant. Does
anyone recall the "storming the Gates" competition several
years back (OK, ten or 11 years back)? That left a lot
of naysayers with slinking away...
Fred Heitkamp
Robert Gelb wrote:
>
> : I think the only strenght of '95 is M$ good marketing, and how could you
> : ever use that?.
> : IMHO you do the same that you think '95 bashers do: You never use other
> : Os's strenghts (not even install / try them), fall into prejustice (you
> : don't have to start over at square 1 for using linux), and overjudge
> : some weeknesses (no M$-software..oh dear)...
> important one. Anything you did before, you can do now faster. For a
Windows 95 ripped off Warp and MAC to get that "ease of use." I've been
reading about the Windows 95 credits display or whatever it's called.
The Amiga has had a trick like that for years. I'm not saying MS ripping
off the other, more advanced OSes, is bad. On the contrary, it's the way
things are done. I'd just like to see credit where credit is due.
I hope IBM doesn't mess up with Merlin and rip off Windows 95 too much.
I personally don't think the (W95) interface is that great. It's actually a
bit irritating to me.
> person like myself who has to work with the computer everyday for long
> periods of time, the new feature with the menus, where you don't have to
> hold it down was great. Another strength is the fact that all the top
> software today is produced for Windows95. I don't see wordperfect for
> OS/2 6.x or Delphi. But the coolest feature of Win95 is that it lets you
> do things your own way.
Windows 95 is a huge improvement over 3.1. Which now brings it up to par with
MACs, and even AmigaOS. Up to this point the only things that allowed Windows
to dominate was the cheap PC hardware and multitude of apps available.
If you used Warp for any length of time you'd realize you can "do things your
own way" more easily than Windows 95. At least that's my opinion, for what it's
worth.
Fred Heitkamp