Cycle ride, Sun 02 March 2003: Glasgow - Falkirk Wheel (via Canal)



Status
Not open for further replies.
David Marsh wrote:
> [Traditional interleaved quoting: please read to end for all comments]
>
>
> Simon Mason wrote in scot.general: about: Re: Cycle ride, Sun 02 March 2003: Glasgow - Falkirk
> Wheel (via Canal)
>
>> Was there supposed to be an attachment to your post?
>
> Hi Simon..
>
> No, no attachment. I post in plaintext only, from a non-Windoze environment. No risk from me :)
>
>
>> I didn't open it as it could be a virus.
>
> Hmm.. Ah, oh, it was my sig, and your newsreader disagreeing with it ;-)
>
> No personal offence intended, but it's my mission to make using Outbreak as difficult as possible
> until M$ fix all of the known bugs in it and make it standards-compliant. I suspect I may be
> waiting some time :-(

Well your a bit of a **** then arn't you?

--
Andy Morris

AndyAtJinkasDotFreeserve.Co.UK

Love this: Put an end to Outlook Express's messy quotes
http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/
 
Just zis Guy, you know? <[email protected]> said:
> On Thu, 27 Feb 2003 01:13:42 -0000, "Robert Peffers" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>You are not naive enough to think people could not write some kind of programme to crack any other
>>mail/news programme if they had enough incentive are you?
>
> No indeed - I know of at least two exploits which could theoretically be used against Lotus Notes
> mail clients. Both of which were fixed by Lotus in Release 5, several years ago.

I quite like (the still theoretical AFAIK) malware that affects emacs message-mode and GNUS.
Obviously you need to

(setq enable-local-eval t)

on the targets first which rather limits its usefulness to the script kiddie, but still.

Regards,

-david
 
Robert Peffers <[email protected]> wrote:
>"David Damerell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>Robert Peffers <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>The very good reason OE is the target for all sorts is the very fact that it is the most used.
>>Except it's, er, not, in many groups - and it's also true that it's a popular target because it is
>>full of holes.
>Na! The holes are only exposed due to every oik on the internet looking for them due to OE being
>the most used mail/news client.

_Is_ it the most used? You don't know, and neither does anyone else.

However, this is completely bogus in any case; for instance, the GNKSA tests are carried out with
equal care no matter the popularity of the tested newsreader; some GNKSA tests do pertain to
security, and OE has the dubious distinction of being one of the few newsreaders that scores worse
on GNKSA tests with every subsequent version.

"Oiks" look for holes in OE because they know there are plenty of holes to find.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> flcl?
 
>>>>> David Marsh writes:
:
:

>> I didn't open it as it could be a virus.

> Hmm.. Ah, oh, it was my sig, and your newsreader disagreeing with it ;-)

:
:

> ...it's my mission to make using Outbreak as difficult as possible until M$ fix all of the
> known bugs in it and make it standards-compliant. I suspect I may be waiting some time :-(

So what is it about your signature that is would/could cause OE indigestion?

I, too, am working in plaintext from a non-Windoze environment. And your signature looks very plain
and ordinary.

> --
> David Marsh, <reply-to-email is valid at time of writing> |
Hmmmm.... Is this---------------------------------^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ some kind of service someone
is offering, or are you doing some kind of limited-life email address generation yourself?

> Glasgow, Scotland. [en, fr, (de)] | http://web.viewport.co.uk/ | begin usenet by learning how
> to post: read news:news.announce.newusers
>> I scorefile posters who don't quote in traditional interspersed style<

Robert.

--
__ To avoid the spam trap, mail me
|_) _ |_ _ ._ |- | _ _| _ ._ at bcs.org.uk, not deadspam.com. \(_)|_)(-'| |_ || |(_|(-'| '
Best viewed in Ebriated.
 
> "Robert Inder" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
> > So what is it about your signature that is would/could cause OE indigestion?
> >
> > I, too, am working in plaintext from a non-Windoze environment. And your signature looks very
> > plain and ordinary.
>
In OE David's posts all have a separate file attached called "usenet by learning how to post_
read news_news.announce". When I click on the file it warns me that it could be a virus. I've
seen viruses spread by e-mail lots of times, so I thought I'd better let him know, just to be on
the safe side. Shouldn't have bothered as it turned out ;-)
--
> Simon Mason Anlaby East Yorkshire. 53°44'N 0°26'W http://www.simonmason.karoo.net
 
"David Damerell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:jtj*[email protected]...
> Robert Peffers <[email protected]> wrote:
> >"David Damerell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>Robert Peffers <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>The very good reason OE is the target for all sorts is the very fact
that it
> >>>is the most used.
> >>Except it's, er, not, in many groups - and it's also true that it's a popular target because it
> >>is full of holes.
> >Na! The holes are only exposed due to every oik on the internet looking
for
> >them due to OE being the most used mail/news client.
>
> _Is_ it the most used? You don't know, and neither does anyone else.
>
> However, this is completely bogus in any case; for instance, the GNKSA tests are carried out with
> equal care no matter the popularity of the tested newsreader; some GNKSA tests do pertain to
> security, and OE has the dubious distinction of being one of the few newsreaders that scores worse
> on GNKSA tests with every subsequent version.
>
> "Oiks" look for holes in OE because they know there are plenty of holes to find.
> --
> David Damerell <[email protected]> flcl?
Frae Auld Bob Peffers: Come on! Wee bit of common here eh? If the overwhelming majority of people
use OE then OE is the one to target if you want to break in to most systems, spread a virus to the
most people, leave a worm on the most machines. Whatever is the most popular reader will get the
most attention. MS gives OE away free so it is the most popular.
--
Aefauldlie, (Scots for Sincerely),, frae Robert, (Auld Bob), Peffers, In Kelty, *Kingdom Of Fife*,
Scotland, (UK). [email protected] (Remove specs to make reply).

*The Eck's Files*, Web Site is http://www.peffers50.freeserve.co.uk/

---
Aa ootgannin mail free frae wee beasties.. Checked by AVG anti-virus system
(http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.456 / Virus Database: 256 - Release Date: 18/02/03
 
"Simon Mason" <[email protected]> writes:

> > "Robert Inder" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> >
> >
> >
> > > So what is it about your signature that is would/could cause OE indigestion?
> > >
> > > I, too, am working in plaintext from a non-Windoze environment. And your signature looks very
> > > plain and ordinary.
> >
> In OE David's posts all have a separate file attached called "usenet by learning how to post_
> read news_news.announce".

What actually you mean is "A bug in OE makes it _look_ as though David's posts all have a seperate
file attached". It's because it has "begin" in it and OE's parsing is ****.
 
On Thu, 27 Feb 2003 19:28:21 +0000, David Marsh <[email protected]> wrote:

>Their "OS" is based on DOS

A 32-bit patch for a 16-bit gui based on an 8-bit rework of a 4-bit operating system from a two bit
company that can't stand one bit of competition :)

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.
 
On Fri, 28 Feb 2003 14:54:05 +0000 (UTC), David Nutter <[email protected]> wrote:

>I quite like (the still theoretical AFAIK) malware that affects emacs message-mode and GNUS.

Yes, looking at the CERT advisories they always say something along the lines of "there is a
theoretical risk that if the widget daemon is left without a password a malicious request may be
able to read files with the daemon's privleges" - and of course nobody would leave said daemon
unsecured, and even if they did the daemon's privileges are very restricted.

Then out comes the next CERT advisory on a Microsoft product: "users can connect using the default
Administrator account and the default password (blank) and execute arbitrary code with root
privileges."

We discovered fairly quickly that the OEM installation of XP (certainly on the workstations we had)
leaves the administrator account named Administrator with a blank password, and doesn't prompt you
to change it during setup.

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.
 
On Fri, 28 Feb 2003 20:43:11 -0000, "Simon Mason" <[email protected]> wrote:

> In OE David's posts all have a separate file attached called "usenet by learning how to post_
> read news_news.announce".

Except they don't. OE has a bug (which can also be used to execute some maligious scripts). It's had
it since at least version 4, AFAIK. How **** is that?

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.
 
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 27 Feb 2003 19:28:21 +0000, David Marsh <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Their "OS" is based on DOS
>
> A 32-bit patch for a 16-bit gui based on an 8-bit rework of a 4-bit operating system from a two
> bit company that can't stand one bit of competition :)
>
> Guy
> ===
> ** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
> dynamic DNS permitting)
> NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
> work. Apologies.
Frae Auld Bob Peffers: Aye! All very clever of you but Bill Gates is a very rich man so I would say
MS must be doing something right.
--
Aefauldlie, (Scots for Sincerely),, frae Robert, (Auld Bob), Peffers, In Kelty, *Kingdom Of Fife*,
Scotland, (UK). [email protected] (Remove specs to make reply).

*The Eck's Files*, Web Site is http://www.peffers50.freeserve.co.uk/

---
Aa ootgannin mail free frae wee beasties.. Checked by AVG anti-virus system
(http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.456 / Virus Database: 256 - Release Date: 18/02/03
 
David Marsh wrote:

> Their "OS" is based on DOS, which is an aged, stunted, featureless pile of junk, and everything
> else is kludged onto that.
...
> Apple had the right idea: the Mac OS was elegant, but getting old, so they rightly decided to
> re-implement it based on a well-designed and well-tested unix core..

To be fair to MS (much as I dislike them), they too decided that it was time to re-implement the OS
core and so came up with NT, from which 2K and XP are descended, to replace DOS; so although it's
true to say that 95->Me are based on DOS, credit where credit is due: the NT kernel is truly
different.

OT alert...

Simon
 
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> On Fri, 28 Feb 2003 20:43:11 -0000, "Simon Mason" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > In OE David's posts all have a separate file attached called "usenet by learning how to post_
> > read news_news.announce".
>
> Except they don't. OE has a bug (which can also be used to execute some maligious scripts). It's
> had it since at least version 4, AFAIK. How **** is that?

It doesn't matter how "****" MS products are, if I see that someone *could* be sending out a virus,
then it my civic duty to point this out. If it turns out that the bug is at my end it still doesn't
mean that I shouldn't have pointed it out in the first place. Simon
 
On 28 Feb 2003 18:57:39 -0800, [email protected] (Simon Mason) wrote:

> It doesn't matter how "****" MS products are, if I see that someone *could* be sending out a
> virus, then it my civic duty to point this out. If it turns out that the bug is at my end it still
> doesn't mean that I shouldn't have pointed it out in the first place.

I think the message was that the pointing out was in the other direction :)

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.
 
On Fri, 28 Feb 2003 23:22:21 +0000, Simon Hay <[email protected]> wrote:

>credit where credit is due: the NT kernel is truly different.

It's just a pity that they sacrificed proper protected memory at the altar of the pretty GUI in the
transition from 3.5 to 4.0. A Linux box running an X client needs as much RAM as Windows does, but
switch to runlevel 3 and most of the RAM is available for services and applications. On a Windows
server you have no choice. And why, on a server, do you have things like pointer shadows, menu
transitions, "My Documents" on the desktop, multimedia components installed by default and so on?
And why do the weekly service packs always require a reboot (probably because Microsoft have
acknowledged that a reboot every four weeks is, in their view, acceptable).

Oh, and that radical "new" Windows XP? It's internally identified as NT 5.1 (Windows 2000 is 5.0).
It's a minor version. The most significant difference is Activation and the ability of Microsoft to
arbitrarily stop you using your own computer. And another pointless change to the GUI, forcing
people to re-learn familiar tasks (again). Unless you switch it back to "classic" mode. And while
you're about it, choose the setting to "optimise for performance" which is (obviously) not set by
default. I mean, why would you want to optimise your computer for performance, for chrissakes?

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.
 
On Fri, 28 Feb 2003 23:05:21 -0000, "Robert Peffers" <[email protected]> wrote:

>All very clever of you but Bill Gates is a very rich man so I would say MS must be doing
>something right.

Yes, he is very good at marketing. When competitors to Windows started to appear he had DOS tweaked
so they didn't work properly. He uses FUD to deter competition, and where competition arises anyway
he either steals or buys the market. He is a very shrewd man. So was Rockefeller, but he was still
breaking the law. The robber barons were rich as well, you know.

The biggest problem with Microsoft is that it is holding back innovation. Microsoft and Intel (in
which Bill owns a substantial stake) together own most of the value in the PC market. Which is one
reason why so many mobile phone makers have jumped ship and gone to Symbian; they don't want to end
up as just another low-margin Microsoft franchise.

Open standards are anathema to Microsoft. They take an established standard and subvert it to give
proprietary lock-in, or they simply ignore it and introduce their own. Or in some cases several
subtly different versions of their own (e.g. SMB).

Mind you, I quite like the fact that Microsoft software sucks. It keeps me in a job. Just as long as
I have something reliable to fall back on when the Blue Screen of Death intervenes - so I have a
couple of Linux boxes and some Macs around the house as well. And all our production servers at work
are now on Linux, with massive improvements in uptime and performance.

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.
 
Simon Ward <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> And it's pretty bloody obvious that some of your computing knowledge is firmly wedged in the
> early 50s as well.
>
> Simon

Don't waste your breath Simon, "Auld Bob Peffers" is a cantankerous old sod who trolls around
various (mainly Scottish) news groups and has never been known to back down from an argument,
irrespective of whether he is right or totally wrong (although he may have done so since I kill
filed him some months back).

Have fun!

Graeme
 
Robert Peffers wrote:

>
> "Nick Kew" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>> In article <[email protected]>, one of infinite monkeys at the keyboard of "Robert
>> Peffers" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > Frae Auld Bob Peffers: The very good reason OE is the target for all sorts is the very fact
> that it
>> > is the most used. Every plonker that ever was wants to do down
> Microsoft.
>> > Face it, if they did not have MS to get at they would target someone
> else.
>>
>> Rubbish.
>>
>> You want to read a complete recipe for an Outlook virus? You can read one published in 1992. Yes,
>> that's several years before Outlook existed.
>>
>> It's part of the formal standard for MIME attachments in internet mail. The recipe is by way of
>> background information, explaining the kind of thing that could happen if some moron ignored the
>> relevant parts of the standard. At the time of writing, it was purely hypothetical.
>>
>> I don't blame you as a user for not being familiar with the standards. But if you were to write
>> an Internet mailer, I hope you'd take the time to read them, and I would not be sympathetic if
>> you didn't.
>>
>> --
>> Wear your paunch with pride!
> Frae Auld Bob Peffers: I am in my mid seventies and have been involved in computers since 1952.
> You trying to tell your grand dad how to suck eggs? You are not naive enough to think people could
> not write some kind of programme to crack any other mail/news programme if they had enough
> incentive are you?

I wouldn't try to talk down to Nick about computing matters, if I were you. I've employed him on one
or two jobs; he's *seriously* good.

I think it's time for _that_ sig file again.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
 
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 28 Feb 2003 23:05:21 -0000, "Robert Peffers" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >All very clever of you but Bill Gates is a very rich man so I would say MS must be doing
> >something right.
>
> Yes, he is very good at marketing. When competitors to Windows started to appear he had DOS
> tweaked so they didn't work properly. He uses FUD to deter competition, and where competition
> arises anyway he either steals or buys the market. He is a very shrewd man. So was Rockefeller,
> but he was still breaking the law. The robber barons were rich as well, you know.
You are missing something in your tirade against MS though and it is that very something that really
did put MS at the top.
>
> The biggest problem with Microsoft is that it is holding back innovation. Microsoft and Intel (in
> which Bill owns a substantial stake) together own most of the value in the PC market. Which is one
> reason why so many mobile phone makers have jumped ship and gone to Symbian; they don't want to
> end up as just another low-margin Microsoft franchise.
Yes but inovation can, in itself, hold back the whole industry and until MS took a hand that is
exactly what was happening.
>
> Open standards are anathema to Microsoft. They take an established standard and subvert it to give
> proprietary lock-in, or they simply ignore it and introduce their own. Or in some cases several
> subtly different versions of their own (e.g. SMB).

Sorry but NO, the fact is that it was because MS allowed others to use their source that the
standard became the standard. Back then it was a toss up between several systems and some of them
were, without doubt, better than MS and Big Blue. That is why Apple Mac almost died and they would
have gone under if they had not made their systems use windows.
>
> Mind you, I quite like the fact that Microsoft software sucks. It keeps me in a job. Just as long
> as I have something reliable to fall back on when the Blue Screen of Death intervenes - so I have
> a couple of Linux boxes and some Macs around the house as well. And all our production servers at
> work are now on Linux, with massive improvements in uptime and performance.
>
> Guy
> ===
> ** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
> dynamic DNS permitting)
> NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
> work. Apologies.

All very fine but what would the position have been if MS had not taken a grip on things and
standardised it. Would we not have still had a multitude of different systems. No system speaking to
another. No internet and no continuity.

What put MS and Big Blue in front was the very fact that their stuff remains backward compatible.
We all knew that there were better system around but the fact that big business did not have to
scrap all their equipment and adopt another new incompatible system for every step forward is the
very thing that made them give up their old machines and get new stuff in. They can still access
the records they have kept. The progression from MS-Dos to MS-DOS windows through Win 3.0 to
WidowsXP PRO is what carried the whole industry forward. If we had tried to jump from system to
system the overall progress would have been much less with companies sticking with their old well
tried systems.
--
Aefauldlie, (Scots for Sincerely),, frae Robert, (Auld Bob), Peffers, In Kelty, *Kingdom Of Fife*,
Scotland, (UK). [email protected] (Remove specs to make reply).

*The Eck's Files*, Web Site is http://www.peffers50.freeserve.co.uk/

---
Aa ootgannin mail free frae wee beasties.. Checked by AVG anti-virus system
(http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.456 / Virus Database: 256 - Release Date: 18/02/03
 
"Graeme Dods" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Simon Ward <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> > And it's pretty bloody obvious that some of your computing knowledge
is
> > firmly wedged in the early 50s as well.
> >
> > Simon
>
> Don't waste your breath Simon, "Auld Bob Peffers" is a cantankerous old sod who trolls around
> various (mainly Scottish) news groups and has never been known to back down from an argument,
> irrespective of whether he is right or totally wrong (although he may have done so since I kill
> filed him some months back).
>
> Have fun!
>
> Graeme
Frae Auld Bob Peffers: Oh! Yeah! At least I actually have an open mind and a point of view. I can
even think for myself. Furthermore I can change it if I meet someone with a better and more
correct view. Yours though must never have fitted that bill. Looks like you have a very well
closed off mind. Probably because you are not ready to debate things with others who hold other
views to your own.

Your kind has always been around and many of them went to the wall because they failed to see
just what MS were about. Bill Gates, though, had the last laugh and he has - laughing all the way
to the bank.

If you read my reply you will see I have explained just why MS carried the industry forward even
although their system was not the best one around. Their stuff is backward compatible and that is
why they got to the top. Big business would have still been using DOS operating systems if they had
been unable to move on to a DOS based GUI systems. I do actually remember when every system stood
alone and no one system could speak to any other system. MS ended all that and even Apple only
survived by making their systems run windows. Your trouble is you cannot comprehend what is being
written. No where have I made the claim that MS was ever the best system. It is the one that carried
the whole industry forward though but it did it by being backward compatible. Many better systems
have fallen by the wayside by not understanding that big business would never make a clean break
with the system they were already using. Now run along and play, there's good little chap.
--
Aefauldlie, (Scots for Sincerely),, frae Robert, (Auld Bob), Peffers, In Kelty, *Kingdom Of Fife*,
Scotland, (UK). [email protected] (Remove specs to make reply).

*The Eck's Files*, Web Site is http://www.peffers50.freeserve.co.uk/

---
Aa ootgannin mail free frae wee beasties.. Checked by AVG anti-virus system
(http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.456 / Virus Database: 256 - Release Date: 18/02/03
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads