I've dumped Linux and moved to Windows XP.

David Sutherland · Jun 25, 2004

On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 11:03:58 +0200, MMI <mmi@nautimail.com> wrote:

David Sutherland wrote:

<newsgroups not trimmed to advocacy>

[snip]

So you would rather *not* go into the details? Wonder why.
ROTFLMAO.

You'd better thank me that I'm not going into details much. Revealing
more about the dumb idea of yours that it must be always a quote in
quotations marks would make you look silly.

ROTFLMAOIROXIEYYTXTE! So your answer to the challenge of proving
I have a brain ...you'd rather not have to.

I rather wonder why

Regards,
David Sutherland
(note **ANTI-SPAM** in reply field)

Curtis Bass · Jun 25, 2004

MMI <mmi@nautimail.com> wrote in message news:<c1.2b5.2rpGBF$8dq@news.consultron.ca>...

Curtis Bass wrote:

MMI <mmi@nautimail.com> wrote in message news:<c1.2b5.2rmQKQ$8dh@news.consultron.ca>...

Curtis Bass wrote:

MMI <mmi@nautimail.com> wrote in message news:<c1.2b5.2rjyw9$8eU@news.consultron.ca>...

David Sutherland wrote:

On 16 Jun 2004 07:37:41 -0700, mmi@nautimail.com (MMI) wrote:

The Ghost In The Machine <ewill@aurigae.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in message news:<7hu3q1-drn.ln1@lexi2.athghost7038suus.net>...

[snip]

Windows had TCP/IP stack support back in *'89*.

Out of the box? Surely not before Windows 95.

Guess that reading his next sentence was just waaaay too much trouble
for you.

No. If "something has support for some doodad" then I expect it to have
that out of the box, not that I am to hunt the net for some 3rd party SW
suite.

What you "expect" is irrelevant -- The Ghost In The Machine never
claimed that Windows had "out of the box" TCP/IP support, and, whether
you like it or not, 3rd party support is just as legitimate and
relevant as "out of the box" support.

Great. Will remeber the last one.

But great, from this time on, I can say that OS/2 had let's say
NFS support from the 2.x (1992-1993) times.

If it's actually true, then yes, absolutely.

Great. And don't tell me you
didn't find any in your OS/2 box.

It doesn't seem to be an issue with anybody but you . . .

Or we can agree that "has support" means "out-of-the box" and then I'll
shut up about let's say NFS for OS/2, but I'll be right about Trumpet
Winsock... You can choose...

Sure, you can be "right" about Trumpet WinSock if we all adopt your
pet meaning of "support", but that is rather unlikely, considering
that your pet meaning is itself wrong.

OK, I will adopt the 'right' meaning, why not. It allows me now to say
that OS/2 has a local multiuser and a local security support (not
HPFS386 related), because there is a 3rd party product that does that.
How do you like it?

I have no problem with it,

Good then. Before this thread, I'd never say something like "OS/2 has
multiuser and local security support. It is made by the 3rd party."
sentences. Well now I can say that. Before, the words "OS/2 has
support," or "<anything> has support" would mean that OS/2 or that
anything> would have to support it on its own. And that really means
out-of-the-box.

Perhaps you should clarify in your own mind the difference between
"has support" and "supports". OS/2 "has support" of multi-user access
via a 3rd party product. However, to say that "OS/2 'supports'
multi-user access" would be a false statement, because "supports" does
indeed imply out-of-the-box support.

See the difference?

as long as you are clear that the support
is 3rd party, just as The Ghost In The Machine was:

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=7hu3q1-drn.ln1%40lexi2.athghost7038suus.net&output=gplain

"Windows had TCP/IP stack support back in *'89*.
(Trumpet Winsock was a 3rd party addon product
that filled the bill in the 3.1 days.)"

The Ghost In The Machine -- June 15, 2004

It's easy to assume vendor (out of the box) support, as you did, but
the problem is that you went into an "out of the box" rant in spite of
The Ghost In The Machine's clarification that the support he was
talking about was indeed 3rd party, and now it seems you have a desire
to mislead people into thinking that OS/2 has out of the box
multi-user and file system security support.

And now it seems you know me better than I do, which of course, is
impossible. Kinda sutherlandish, but I can live with that.

What part of "seems" do you not understand?

Multiuser-OS/2-plus-local-security* (protecting files and
directories by UID/PSWD) according to your 'right' definition?

It ain't "my" right definition -- it's just _the_ right definition.

Alright, I accept that.

I just can't wait until some of you comes here into COOA ranting about
NT's local security and OS/2's lack of it.

Well, out of the box, OS/2 does lack local file system security and
multi-user access, and the 3rd party add-on that provides it is a beta
port of Linux code.

Anything to support this claim (about beta port of Linux code)?

http://os2.kiev.ua/en/sses.php

http://os2.kiev.ua/en/sses.download.php

I may be wrong about its being a port of Linux code, and I was
definitely wrong about its beta status -- it's actually alpha-level
code.

Because AFAIK the only things that look like Linux in that product
is the "su" command, using the "passwd" file with similar structure,
and perhaps "etc" directory. The rest is quite different, for example
the driver that uses security hooks in the Warp 4+ kernel, which is,
and you're surely not going to argue that, quite a different beast
from the Linux kernel.

None of this proves that it isn't a port. The fact that there are
differences is to be expected -- that's what "porting" is all about,
after all.

Then there is multiuser process concept, but that is common to
all multiuser systems, even NT.

The point here is that OS/2 is _not_ a multi-user system unless you
_add_ _on_ a 3rd-party product. Out of the box, OS/2 is as
single-user as you can get.

And don't forget, that software does have more "actions" to disable
or enable than typical Linux rwx-rwx-rwx "holy trinity" of attributes

<Shrug> If you say so.

Which, of course, leads to the obvious question:

How are you going to support that claim of yours?

What claim?

Why not just use Linux,

You know, I have Linux on my secondary machine. And well, "Linux is not
quite there yet" from my point of view. I'll wait for some more years to
come. Then I may switch.

Fair enough, but my question then becomes: Where is "there"? You say
that Linux "isn't quite there, yet", so where does it need to be?

instead of porting all of this Linux/GNU code
over to the OS/2 kernel?

I dunno, first I've got to see the support of your claim.

Even if the code I referenced isn't Linux code, my point that a
substantial portion of development seems to be porting GNU/Linux code
over to OS/2 is still valid. For example, the WarpVision program that
people rave about includes GNU code. The GIMP is another obvious
example. And "UniAud is based on the Linux ALSA project"
(http://www.os2warp.be/index2.php?name=uniauddown).

Ironically, it took UniAud (ALSA . . . _LINUX/GNU_ technology) to
finally provide sound on my old Gateway notebook -- native OS/2
Allegro drivers never did work. For better or worse, that notebook is
retired and I currently use a Sony Vaio notebook, which doesn't even
have a floppy disk drive. eCS 1.0 will not install on this machine,
although 1.1 allegedly will.

Linux, otoh, has no problem installing, and the GL screensavers work
beautifully with my nVidia hardware. Sound was somewhat problematic,
but, with a little internet research, I was able to get that problem
solved. The neat thing is that Linux and Windows both see the
hyperthreading P4 as 2 processors, so I am running the SMP kernel as I
type this. And GNOME looks great at 1400 x 1050 x 24. And I have
hardware 3D acceleration for the GL stuff.

Curtis

Curtis Bass · Jun 25, 2004

The Ghost In The Machine <ewill@aurigae.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in message news:<5u1pq1-ua5.ln1@lexi2.athghost7038suus.net>...

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Curtis Bass
cmbass_us@yahoo.com
wrote
on 23 Jun 2004 08:42:45 -0700
163715e7.0406230742.43a6f4d1@posting.google.com>:

MMI <mmi@nautimail.com> wrote in message news:<c1.2b5.2rmQKQ$8dh@news.consultron.ca>...

-- snip --

OK, I will adopt the 'right' meaning, why not. It allows me now to say
that OS/2 has a local multiuser and a local security support (not
HPFS386 related), because there is a 3rd party product that does that.
How do you like it?

I have no problem with it, as long as you are clear that the support
is 3rd party, just as The Ghost In The Machine was:

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=7hu3q1-drn.ln1%40lexi2.athghost7038suus.net&output=gplain

"Windows had TCP/IP stack support back in *'89*.
(Trumpet Winsock was a 3rd party addon product
that filled the bill in the 3.1 days.)"

The Ghost In The Machine -- June 15, 2004

It's easy to assume vendor (out of the box) support, as you did, but
the problem is that you went into an "out of the box" rant in spite of
The Ghost In The Machine's clarification that the support he was
talking about was indeed 3rd party, and now it seems you have a desire
to mislead people into thinking that OS/2 has out of the box
multi-user and file system security support.

Multiuser-OS/2-plus-local-security* (protecting files and
directories by UID/PSWD) according to your 'right' definition?

It ain't "my" right definition -- it's just _the_ right definition.

I just can't wait until some of you comes here into COOA ranting about
NT's local security and OS/2's lack of it.

Well, out of the box, OS/2 does lack local file system security and
multi-user access, and the 3rd party add-on that provides it is a beta
port of Linux code. Which, of course, leads to the obvious question:

Why not just use Linux, instead of porting all of this Linux/GNU code
over to the OS/2 kernel?

I for one would think that obvious, if somewhat limiting, since one
can also flip the question (you'll see how in a moment).

Obviously, OS/2 has some utilities that the individual likes. I've
heard good things about their workshell (I forget the exact name),
for example.

Well and good, until you consider that the Workplace Shell (WPS for
short) is not supported by its vendor, and rendered more irrelevant
with each passing day. Consider the local file system security and
multi-user access we were discussing -- how well does this integrate
with the WPS? For example, if you right-click on a file icon in WPS
and select Properties, will the Properties notebook give you the
file's permissions? Can you change those permissions via the WPS or
do you have to use the command line?

The point I am making is that much "development" on OS/2 seems to be
little more than porting OSS/GNU code, and little of what I see is
WPS-specific, or even WPS-integrated, which, again, translates into
the WPS becoming more irrelevant. Also, those native WPS-aware OS/2
applications that do exist are, for the most part, frozen and stagnant
(yes, there are doubtless a few exceptions, which only proves the
rule). I see these OS/2 Advocates go on and on about how wonderful
the WPS is, as if it were magic rather than just a means to an end.
The WPS is Just A Shell, after all, no matter how fancy or polished it
may be. It's just a tool, not nirvana.

And yes, I used it exclusively for several years, and no, I don't see
it as anything special. As far as I'm concerned, the Windows shell
has caught up to the WPS in the important areas, and GNOME/KDE are
closing in. Frankly, advocating the WPS is nothing more than
religion, as I see it. I see no rationale behind using it when it
means doing without so many things that Windows and Linux provide,
such as good development tools and environments, full exploitation of
current hardware, and yes, the wide choice of applications (not just
MS-Office).

My understanding is that the knowledge to do effective WPS programming
is evaporating -- relatively few programmers know the ins and outs of
WPS programming, and documentation is not that easy to find. Can you
even do WPS programming with GCC? Regardless, WPS and its underlying
SOM are not well supported at all.

The flipped question, obviously, is why those couldn't be ported to Linux.
I do not know the answer to that, as I'm not familiar enough with OS/2.

Much of OS/2, including the WPS, was written by third parties
(including Microsoft, MicroGrafix, and Adobe, I believe) and licensed
to IBM for inclusion into the product. This licensing prevents the
porting of many sections of code, and what can be ported may not be
functional without that which cannot be ported. Also, there doesn't
appear to be any business reason for IBM to open what source it can,
and frankly, I doubt that there is enough programming talent in the
active OS/2 community to do anything with such code even if it _were_
made available. This isn't a slight against OS/2 programmers, btw;
I'm not saying that OS/2 programmers aren't talented, only that there
aren't enough of them to make a difference.

Frankly, all things considered, to me it simply makes more sense to
take the best concepts of WPS and OS/2, and re-implement them on
Linux, and I view GNOME (for example) as a decent start.

Curtis

Cola.E · Jun 25, 2004

Jim Backus wrote:

From what I hear, the XP version of Windows is at last delivering the
robustness that users should expect of an operating system.

Well Jim, as the voice of Mr. Magoo, you've always had problems /seeing/
and /hearing/ clearly. Such as:

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;833846

Microsoft Knowledge Base Article - 833846

SYMPTOMS

Your computer may crash unexpectedly while it is running a program, such as
a game, that uses sound.

CAUSE

This problem may occur if your system uses a Realtek AC'97 Audio device and
if the wrong driver is installed for the device.

--
w:4

Cola.E · Jun 25, 2004

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;822350

Internet Explorer May Shut Down Unexpectedly If You Have Set Windows and
Buttons to Windows XP Style

SYMPTOMS

Internet Explorer shuts down unexpectedly because of an access violation.
The call stack during the crash is as follows:

mshtml.dll!CButton::YieldCurrency(CElement * pElemNew=0x06bdde10)
Line 385 C++

mshtml.dll!CDoc::SetCurrentElem(CElement * pElemNext=0x06bdde10,
long lSubNext=0, int * pfYieldFailed=0x069fdfd4, long lButton=1, int *
pfDisallowedByEd=0x069fdfc4, int fFireFocusBlurEvents=1, int fMnemonic=0)
Line 3615 + 0x12 C++
mshtml.dll!CElement::BecomeCurrent(long lSubDivision=0, int *
pfYieldFailed=0x069fdfd4, CMessage * pmsg=0x069fe400, int fTakeFocus=1,
long lButton=1, int * pfDisallowedByEd=0x069fdfc4, int
fFireFocusBlurEvents=1, int fMnemonic=0) Line 1766 + 0x35 C++
mshtml.dll!CElement::BubbleBecomeCurrent(long lSubDivision=0, int *
pfYieldFailed=0x069fe16c, CMessage * pMessage=0x069fe400, int fTakeFocus=1,
long lButton=1) Line 2031 + 0x3e C++
mshtml.dll!CDoc:

umpMessage(CMessage * pMessage=0x069fe400,
CTreeNode * pNodeTarget=0x06bde1b0, int fPerformTA=0) Line 3842 + 0x46
C++
mshtml.dll!CDoc::OnMouseMessage(unsigned int msg=513, unsigned int
wParam=1, long lParam=30867963, long * plResult=0x069feb2c, int x=507, int
y=471) Line 1881 + 0x29 C++
mshtml.dll!CDoc::OnWindowMessage(unsigned int msg=513, unsigned int
wParam=1, long lParam=30867963, long * plResult=0x069feb2c) Line 824 +
0x33 C++
mshtml.dll!CServer::WndProc(HWND__ * hwnd=0x0001150e, unsigned int
msg=513, unsigned int wParam=1, long lParam=30867963) Line 2338 + 0x30
C++
user32.dll!_InternalCallWinProc@20() Line 102 Asm
user32.dll!UserCallWinProcCheckWow(_ACTIVATION_CONTEXT *
pActCtx=0x00000000, long (HWND__ *, unsigned int, unsigned int, long)*
pfn=0x6388e690, HWND__ * hwnd=0x0001150e, unsigned int msg=513, unsigned
int wParam=1, long lParam=30867963, void * pww=0x0102b10c, int
fEnableLiteHooks=1) Line 165 + 0x37 C
user32.dll!DispatchMessageWorker(tagMSG * pmsg=0x069fec78, int
fAnsi=0) Line 2490 + 0x1e C
user32.dll!DispatchMessageW(const tagMSG * lpMsg=0x069fec78) Line
1028 C
browseui.dll!TimedDispatchMessage(tagMSG * pmsg=0x069fec78) Line
9368 C++
browseui.dll!BrowserThreadProc(IETHREADPARAM * piei=0x00000000)
Line 9592 C++
browseui.dll!BrowserProtectedThreadProc(void * pv=0x0546fd00) Line
9745 C++
browseui.dll!SHOpenFolderWindow(IETHREADPARAM * piei=0x0546fd00)
Line 9923 C++
kernel32.dll!BaseThreadStart(unsigned long (void *)*
lpStartAddress=0x718bfac1, void * lpParameter=0x0546fd00) Line 532 + 0x6
C

CAUSE

This problem may occur if you have set Windows and buttons to Windows XP
style. The Windows and buttons option is on the Appearance tab of the
Windows XP Display Properties dialog box.

--
w:4

Cola.E · Jun 25, 2004

Will M$ ever release a tested and working product?

Look at this voluminous buglist for a product that is over 15 years old.

With all that time, new and worst bugs keep popping up in Windopes!!!

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=%2fsupport%2fServicePacks%2fWindows%2fXP%2fSP1FixList.asp

KB Article
Title
Category
Modified Date

282010
ACC2002: Updated Version of Microsoft Jet 4.0 Available in Download Center
Application Compatibility
10/27/2002 1:23:59 PM

303013
How to Enable 48-bit Logical Block Addressing Support for ATAPI Disk Drives
in Windows XP
Application Compatibility
9/9/2002 7:55:00 AM

307754
Cannot Print from a Window XP-Based Computer to a Shared Printer on a
Windows 95-Based Computer
Application Compatibility
9/5/2002 4:46:00 PM

308035
Computer Stops Responding When Shim Code Has a Buffer Overrun
Application Compatibility
9/5/2002 4:45:00 PM

308362
Error Message Appears When You Start Laplink PCsync Version 2.0 on Windows
XP
Application Compatibility
9/5/2002 4:42:00 PM

308381
Windows XP Application Compatibility Update (October 25, 2001)
Application Compatibility
9/5/2002 4:42:00 PM

311838
An OpenGL Program May Cause an Access Violation in Windows XP 64-Bit Edition
Application Compatibility
9/5/2002 4:56:00 PM

312370
Universal Serial Bus 2.0 Support in Windows XP
Application Compatibility
9/17/2002 10:13:00 AM

312505
OpenGL-Based Program Causes Access Violation in Windows XP
Application Compatibility
9/5/2002 5:07:00 PM

313450
MS02-012: A Malformed Data Transfer Request May Cause the Windows SMTP
Service to Stop Working
Application Compatibility
10/11/2002 3:35:00 PM

313484
Windows XP Application Compatibility Update (December 17, 2001)
Application Compatibility
9/5/2002 5:05:00 PM

315092
An Attack on Port 1720 May Cause NetMeeting to Refuse Incoming Connections
Application Compatibility
10/2/2002 11:09:00 AM

316625
You Cannot Start a Program That Uses a Manifest File That Is Stored on a
Windows NT 4.0 Server
Application Compatibility
9/5/2002 5:21:00 PM

316696
The Flags in a Typelib Element of an Assembly Manifest Can Be Only
Restricted or Null
Application Compatibility
9/5/2002 5:21:00 PM

317181
Cannot Transfer Images From Your Nikon Digital Camera
Application Compatibility
9/5/2002 5:34:00 PM

319580
Windows XP Application Compatibility Update (April 10, 2002)
Application Compatibility
9/5/2002 5:38:00 PM

320368
The Richedit Text Control May Replace CRLF in the Output
Application Compatibility
9/5/2002 5:46:00 PM

320949
PRB: 1394 Devices Stop Responding During Isochronous Transfer Operations
Application Compatibility
9/5/2002 5:59:00 PM

321060
Raytheon RayLink Wireless PCMCIA LAN Adapter Does Not Start with a Code 12
Application Compatibility
10/11/2002 4:10:00 PM

324300
You See a Black Video Window in Windows Movie Maker with a Variable Data
Rate Digital Video 1394 Device
Application Compatibility
9/5/2002 6:11:00 PM

325072
Cannot Install CISCO VPN Client on Windows XP
Application Compatibility
9/5/2002 6:09:00 PM

326957
Many Zero-Byte Files Are Created by Novell Client on a Novell Print Server
Application Compatibility
10/21/2002 3:35:00 PM

275657
IIS 5.0 Fix for Cross-Site Scripting Issues
Internet Information Services/Com+
9/5/2002 4:40:00 PM

306414
FIX: ODBC Connection from COM+ Component May Connect to Wrong Database
Internet Information Services/Com+
9/16/2002 11:17:00 AM

314339
MS02-018: Patch Available for Access Violation in URL Error Handling
Vulnerability
Internet Information Services/Com+
9/5/2002 5:17:00 PM

317926
INFO: Availability of Windows XP COM+ Hotfix Rollup Package 1
Internet Information Services/Com+
10/25/2002 12:44:00 PM

319733
MS02-018: April 2002 Cumulative Patch for Internet Information Services
Internet Information Services/Com+
9/25/2002 2:35:00 PM

323137
Application Proxy That Uses COMTI Type Library Does Not Install on Windows
XP
Internet Information Services/Com+
9/5/2002 6:03:00 PM

312826
Some Laptops May Not Suspend Properly, Backlight Stays On
Video
9/5/2002 5:07:00 PM

308677
Error Message Appears When a Limited User Tries to Stream Media in Windows
Media Player
Multimedia
10/17/2002 10:00:00 AM

309370
Media Player Stops Responding When You Download a File from a URL on Windows
XP
Multimedia
9/5/2002 4:53:00 PM

310436
Cannot Play a DVD in Windows XP
Multimedia
9/5/2002 4:50:00 PM

310507
Enabling Acoustic Echo Cancellation and DV Camera/TV Tuner Support in
Windows Messenger
Multimedia
9/5/2002 4:49:00 PM

311361
An Error Occurs in Joy.cpl If a Fujitsu USB Infrared Remote Control Is
Connected
Multimedia
9/5/2002 5:00:00 PM

318507
DirectX: AmCap Does Not Start When You Install It As a Service
Multimedia
9/5/2002 5:43:00 PM

319632
Device Manager Hangs After You Remove a USB Camera
Multimedia
10/11/2002 3:13:00 PM

319739
Problems with Two Digital Video Camcorders That Are Connected to Two
Different IEEE 1394 Adapters
Multimedia
9/5/2002 5:50:00 PM

320552
Problems with the InterActual DVD Playback Program
Multimedia
9/5/2002 5:46:00 PM

321178
DirectX 8.1 Potential Issues in Games That Use Software Vertex Processing
Multimedia
9/10/2002 4:36:00 AM

321463
A DirectPlay Player Connection May Not Be Established and No Error Message
May Occur
Multimedia
9/5/2002 5:55:00 PM

321677
MS02-032: Patch Available for WMDM PMSP Service Vulnerability
Multimedia
9/5/2002 5:54:00 PM

325154
A "STOP 0x0000008E" Error Message Occurs in Wdmaud.sys
Multimedia
9/5/2002 6:09:00 PM

300989
Connectivity Problems Using a FQDN of Exactly 16 Characters
Networking
10/11/2002 3:39:00 PM

307527
Called Party May Not Recognize Real-Time Communications Client Program
Dialed Digits
Networking
9/5/2002 4:47:00 PM

308246
Disabling NetBT on a Remote Access Connection Causes Communication Problems
Networking
9/5/2002 4:44:00 PM

308374
Ricoh 1394 Controller May Not Work with Windows XP
Networking
9/9/2002 9:24:00 AM

309073
Invalid Universal Plug and Play Request can Disrupt System Operation
Networking
9/5/2002 4:54:00 PM

309376
A Long Time Is Needed to Open a File By Using SMB
Networking
10/17/2002 10:03:00 AM

309448
User Authentication Is Not Performed After You Turn On Computer
Authentication
Networking
9/5/2002 4:52:00 PM

310507
Enabling Acoustic Echo Cancellation and DV Camera/TV Tuner Support in
Windows Messenger
Networking
9/5/2002 4:49:00 PM

311842
Help and Support May Stop Responding When You Use the Network Diagnostic
Tool
Networking
9/5/2002 5:11:00 PM

311885
TAPI Error 0x8000022 Occurs with an English (Canada) or French (Canada)
System Locale
Networking
9/5/2002 5:11:00 PM

311935
Multicasts with a TTL Setting of Zero Are Transmitted on the Network
Networking
10/11/2002 3:35:00 PM

312181
Long Delays When You Open Resources on a DFS Share
Networking
9/5/2002 5:09:00 PM

313695
Authentication Is Not Successful When You Try to Connect to a RAS Server
That Uses EAP-TLS
Networking
9/5/2002 5:19:00 PM

313896
DHCP Clients Cannot Obtain an IP Address from the DHCP Server
Networking
9/5/2002 5:18:00 PM

314147
MS02-006: An Unchecked Buffer in the SNMP Service May Allow Code to Run
Networking
10/14/2002 12:05:00 PM

314510
Windows 2000 Fax Does Not Retransmit the Same Page After it Receives a
Retrain Negative Command
Networking
10/11/2002 4:10:00 PM

314592
Domain Policy to Stop the Use of ICS or ICF Stops Services
Networking
9/5/2002 5:16:00 PM

314862
Update Available for the Background Intelligent Transfer Service
Networking
9/5/2002 5:14:00 PM

314994
You Cannot Receive DHCP Configuration After Successful Authentication
Networking
9/5/2002 5:26:00 PM

315000
Unchecked Buffer in Universal Plug and Play Can Lead to System Compromise
for Windows XP
Networking
9/5/2002 5:26:00 PM

316042
Slow Connectivity to NetWare Resources
Networking
10/11/2002 3:35:00 PM

316397
Windows XP Real-Time Communication Client Support for Network Address
Translation
Networking
9/5/2002 5:22:00 PM

317288
A DHCP Client May Send an Incorrect FQDN in a DHCP-Request Packet
Networking
9/5/2002 5:33:00 PM

317437
NetBIOS Listen May Return a Damaged NCB Structure
Networking
9/5/2002 5:32:00 PM

317483
The SyncDomainWithMembership Option Does Not Work in an Unattended
Installation of Windows XP
Networking
9/5/2002 5:32:00 PM

317936
GetHostbyaddr Function Is Not Thread Safe Without DNS and/or WINS
Networking
9/5/2002 5:31:00 PM

317949
Socket Sharing Creates Data Loss When Listen and Accept Occur on Different
Processes
Networking
9/5/2002 5:30:00 PM

319555
Terminal Services CALs Are Not Issued for Windows XP Embedded and Windows XP
Home Edition
Networking
10/11/2002 3:13:00 PM

319627
Fragmentation Occurs When You Send Multicast Data Over Ethernet
Networking
10/11/2002 3:13:00 PM

319778
Dead Gateway Detection Does Not Fail Over UDP Traffic to Alternate Gateway
Networking
9/5/2002 5:50:00 PM

319810
A Computer May Hang During a Heavy Load with an Ericsson HIS Modem
Networking
10/11/2002 11:20:00 AM

320229
Windows XP DHCP Client Incorrectly Sends Unicast Discover Message
Networking
9/5/2002 5:48:00 PM

320507
Internet Explorer Does Not Retry Bad Proxy Server for 30 Minutes
Networking
10/1/2002 4:54:00 PM

321036
Modem Settings Are Missing After You Remove and Re-Insert Your Modem
Networking
10/11/2002 3:12:00 PM

321803
Cannot Use the Network Monitor Remote Feature in Windows XP
Networking
9/5/2002 6:06:00 PM

322097
Slow Browsing to Windows 98 or Windows Me Clients from Windows XP
Networking
9/5/2002 6:05:00 PM

325331
A Connection Manager Connection Does Not Connect After Being Disconnected
Networking
9/5/2002 6:09:00 PM

326903
CSNW Experiences Delays in Opening Files on the Network
Networking
9/10/2002 10:07:00 AM

282784
fecheck.exe Verifies the Installation of Windows 2000 and Windows XP
Hotfixes
Base OS
10/11/2002 3:47:00 PM

304622
CAPS LOCK Key Behavior with 16-Bit VDM Is Incorrect for French MultiLanguage
Versions of Windows
Base OS
10/11/2002 3:38:00 PM

305601
MS01-060: FIX: CRT String Format Functions May Underwrite Buffer
Base OS
10/11/2002 3:37:00 PM

306676
The Computer Cannot Enter Standby or Hibernate If a Direct3D-Based Screen
Saver Is Running
Base OS
9/5/2002 4:34:00 PM

307271
Patch Available for USB Isochronous Data Transfers Issues
Base OS
9/5/2002 4:34:00 PM

307611
FIX: Unable to Set Flush-to-Zero Mode Using _controlfp()
Base OS
9/18/2002 11:26:00 AM

307969
Error Message After Installing a Hewlett-Packard 4400-Series Scanner on the
Parallel Port
Base OS
9/5/2002 4:45:00 PM

308219
Hard Disk Performance Is Slower Than You Expect
Base OS
9/5/2002 4:44:00 PM

308285
Alps Pointing-Device Is Listed as Alps Touchpad in Device Manager
Base OS
9/5/2002 4:43:00 PM

308306
Contact Information for Epson Stylus Photo Is Incorrect on Windows XP
Base OS
9/5/2002 4:43:00 PM

308928
The MCI_PLAY Command Returns No Response for Five or More Seconds
Base OS
9/5/2002 4:54:00 PM

309344
File Appears to Be Deleted Although You Do Not Have Permissions on the OS/2
Warp4-Based Server
Base OS
9/5/2002 7:03:00 PM

309376
A Long Time Is Needed to Open a File By Using SMB
Base OS
10/17/2002 10:03:00 AM

310407
Access Violation When You Run ASP Page or VBScript Program
Base OS
9/5/2002 4:50:00 PM

310437
Cannot Start the UPS Service
Base OS
9/5/2002 4:50:00 PM

310510
Playback and Copy-Protection Issues When You Try to Play the Snow White and
the Seven Dwarfs DVD Movie
Base OS
10/11/2002 3:36:00 PM

310664
Your Computer May Stop Responding After You Remove Either a CD-ROM Drive or
a DVD Drive from the Drive Bay
Base OS
9/5/2002 5:02:00 PM

310718
Performance Counter Problems with VIA 686B and Intel 815x Chipsets in
Windows XP
Base OS
9/5/2002 5:02:00 PM

310772
PCMCIA Device May Not Work in Windows XP
Base OS
9/5/2002 5:02:00 PM

310869
STOP Error When You Start Windows After You Connect a Scanner
Base OS
9/5/2002 5:01:00 PM

311430
1394 Storage Device Does Not Work After You Insert or Remove 1394 Device
Base OS
10/10/2002 3:38:00 PM

311542
Devices May Not Power Up Properly When Resuming From Standby
Base OS
9/5/2002 4:58:00 PM

311706
Computer with SpeedStep Hangs When It Wakes Up from an S4 State
Base OS
9/16/2002 10:24:00 AM

311799
Your Computer May Pause with a Black Screen If You Press ESC During Startup
Base OS
10/11/2002 3:35:00 PM

311822
Your Computer May Hang If You Unexpectedly Remove a PC Card Storage Device
While the Computer Is in Standby
Base OS
9/5/2002 4:57:00 PM

311887
Program in the RUN Key Does Not Run at Logon
Base OS
9/5/2002 5:11:00 PM

311967
MS02-017: Unchecked Buffer in the Multiple UNC Provider
Base OS
10/14/2002 12:05:00 PM

312181
Long Delays When You Open Resources on a DFS Share
Base OS
9/5/2002 5:09:00 PM

312370
Universal Serial Bus 2.0 Support in Windows XP
Base OS
9/17/2002 10:13:00 AM

312372
The Computer Does Not Return from Hibernation Correctly in Korean Windows XP
Base OS
9/5/2002 5:08:00 PM

312473
"File Does Not Exist" Error Message When You Try to Open Cached Files When
You Are Offline
Base OS
10/11/2002 3:35:00 PM

313237
FIX: ATL Container Implementation Does Not Allow Access to Ambient
Properties
Base OS
9/5/2002 5:06:00 PM

313580
BUG: PC Card of Type Parallel Does Not Obtain Input/Output Resources
Base OS
9/5/2002 5:20:00 PM

313600
An Error Occurs in Usbhub.sys If It Is Used as a Composite Driver
Base OS
10/11/2002 3:35:00 PM

314293
Computer Does Not Resume When You Press a Key on Your USB Keyboard
Base OS
9/5/2002 5:17:00 PM

314634
Windows XP Does Not Detect Your New USB Device
Base OS
9/5/2002 5:15:00 PM

314748
A Pentium III Tualatin Processor and 440MX Chipset Combination with a Legacy
Interface Is Not Initialized
Base OS
9/5/2002 5:15:00 PM

314801
Wireless Modem May Not Start
Base OS
9/5/2002 5:14:00 PM

314993
A Disc in a DVD Drive May Not Be Played Automatically with Roxio Easy CD
Creator 5.1 and Norton Anti-Virus 2002
Base OS
9/5/2002 5:26:00 PM

315399
Debug Is Not Initialized on Some Devices with 1394 PC Cards
Base OS
9/5/2002 5:25:00 PM

315403
Stop 0x000000ED Error Message When Volume on IDE Drive with Caching Enabled
Is Mounted
Base OS
9/5/2002 5:24:00 PM

315502
The USB Keyboard Does Not Work After Your Resume Your Computer from Standby
or Suspend
Base OS
9/5/2002 5:24:00 PM

316575
Problems When You Swap a CD-ROM During Hibernation in Windows XP
Base OS
9/5/2002 5:22:00 PM

316676
"STOP 0x0000000A" Error Message When You Change from AC Power to DC Power
Base OS
9/5/2002 5:21:00 PM

317087
Computer Hangs When You Resume from Hibernation or Standby if Your Ultra Bay
Has a UDMA Device
Base OS
9/5/2002 5:34:00 PM

317272
Computer Stops Responding When You Resume from S3 State in Windows XP
Base OS
9/17/2002 8:33:00 PM

317326
Stop 0x000000D1 Error Message When You Turn Your Computer Off
Base OS
9/5/2002 5:32:00 PM

317673
Computer Hangs if USB Selective Suspend Option of USB Mouse Is On
Base OS
9/5/2002 5:31:00 PM

318043
File Copy to a Novell NetWare Server May Be Slow
Base OS
9/5/2002 5:30:00 PM

318159
Damaged Registry Repair and Recovery in Windows XP
Base OS
9/5/2002 5:29:00 PM

318213
Issues in the Installation of Multifunction PCMCIA Cards
Base OS
9/5/2002 5:29:00 PM

318214
BUG: You Cannot Find Compatible Drivers for Multifunction PC cards
Base OS
9/5/2002 5:29:00 PM

318332
You Receive a "System Error 1230" Error Message When You Browse the Network
Base OS
10/10/2002 3:36:00 PM

318358
Computer May Hang When You Swap a CardBus Card After Resuming from Suspend
Base OS
9/5/2002 5:28:00 PM

318773
You Receive a "USB Device Not Recognized" Error Message When You Resume Your
Computer from Suspend or Hibernation
Base OS
9/5/2002 5:42:00 PM

318891
AMD PowerNow! Technology Support for Windows XP
Base OS
9/25/2002 2:53:00 PM

319043
Driver May Not Be Loaded with the /3GB Switch
Base OS
9/5/2002 5:40:00 PM

319326
Certain R2 PC Cards Are Incorrectly Enumerated as Memory Cards
Base OS
10/11/2002 3:13:00 PM

319632
Device Manager Hangs After You Remove a USB Camera
Base OS
10/11/2002 3:13:00 PM

319777
You Cannot Run a Program File with Only Execute Access
Base OS
9/5/2002 5:50:00 PM

319971
You Cannot Open a File That You Moved to a DFS Share in Windows XP
Base OS
9/5/2002 5:49:00 PM

320133
GetMappedFileName() Generates an ERROR_NOACCESS Response
Base OS
9/5/2002 5:48:00 PM

320171
Extended Text Mode 73h on Command.com Does Not Work with Japanese Windows XP
Base OS
9/5/2002 5:48:00 PM

320284
Problems When You Eject FAT16-Formatted Removable-Storage Devices
Base OS
9/5/2002 5:47:00 PM

320310
The Windows 2000 Redirector May Cancel a Session During a Long Locking
Operation
Base OS
10/11/2002 3:12:00 PM

320694
16-Bit Programs May Not Update the Screen on Processors Faster Than 2.0 GHz
Base OS
10/11/2002 3:12:00 PM

320822
Defrag.exe Displays Incorrect Usage or Help Messages in Swedish Windows XP
Base OS
9/5/2002 6:00:00 PM

320899
Windows XP Generates a "Stop 0xA0" Error Message During Hibernation
Base OS
9/5/2002 5:59:00 PM

320949
PRB: 1394 Devices Stop Responding During Isochronous Transfer Operations
Base OS
9/5/2002 5:59:00 PM

321047
The Format() Function Gives Different Results in Windows XP Than in Windows
2000
Base OS
10/17/2002 5:32:00 PM

321060
Raytheon RayLink Wireless PCMCIA LAN Adapter Does Not Start with a Code 12
Base OS
10/11/2002 4:10:00 PM

321064
Computer Hangs for 15 Seconds When You Use Your Zip Drive
Base OS
10/11/2002 4:10:00 PM

321180
Cannot Use a Windows XP Network Share if You Are a Member of More Than 180
Groups
Base OS
9/5/2002 5:56:00 PM

321590
HID Audio Control Keys Do Not Work After Resuming from Hibernation in
Windows XP
Base OS
9/5/2002 5:55:00 PM

321788
STDIN/STDOUT Redirection May Not Work If Started from a File Association
Base OS
10/24/2002 11:37:00 AM

322302
Cannot Obtain an Interrupt Resource for a PCI-PCI Bridge Device
Base OS
10/11/2002 4:09:00 PM

322359
Intelide.sys Is Not Used on Computers with ICH4
Base OS
10/11/2002 4:09:00 PM

323154
Mobile Processor May Remain on "High" After Resuming from Standby
Base OS
9/5/2002 6:03:00 PM

323507
Your IEEE 1394 or USB CD-ROM or DVD-ROM Drive May Not Be Recognized in
Windows XP
Base OS
9/5/2002 6:02:00 PM

323582
Net3101 Error on OS/2 Server Because of SessionSetup SMB
Base OS
10/23/2002 2:10:00 PM

323702
DFS Client Connects to Share on a Different Site Even Though a DFS Share
Exists in the Same Site
Base OS
9/26/2002 3:41:00 PM

324300
You See a Black Video Window in Windows Movie Maker with a Variable Data
Rate Digital Video 1394 Device
Base OS
9/5/2002 6:11:00 PM

324415
A Digital Audio Interface PC Card May Not Function Properly
Base OS
10/11/2002 3:07:00 PM

325038
Calendar Type May Change to Japanese Emperor Era When Outlook Runs
Base OS
9/5/2002 6:10:00 PM

326147
Windows XP Does Not Always Call DrvAssertMode(FALSE) Before it Enters a
Power-Down State
Base OS
9/5/2002 6:08:00 PM

326457
Inserting the Same SmartMedia Adapters Causes a "Stop 0xCA" Error Message
Base OS
9/5/2002 6:07:00 PM

326464
FIX: Incorrect 1394 Node Becomes Cycle Master
Base OS
9/25/2002 4:17:00 PM

327086
Data Added to Removable Media During Hibernation May Be Lost When You Resume
Windows XP
Base OS
9/5/2002 6:07:00 PM

314510
Windows 2000 Fax Does Not Retransmit the Same Page After it Receives a
Retrain Negative Command
Printing
10/11/2002 4:10:00 PM

314784
The Spooler Service Cannot Delete the Temporary File If You Log On to the
Computer as a User
Printing
10/11/2002 3:35:00 PM

317631
Graphics Do Not Print Correctly on Fuji Xerox 4108-Series Printers
Printing
9/5/2002 5:32:00 PM

318365
Cannot Print a Large Paper Size at High Resolution
Printing
10/10/2002 3:36:00 PM

318954
A Default Printer That Is Not Available May Cause a Delay in Programs
Printing
10/16/2002 3:42:00 PM

318966
Problems Viewing, Editing, or Printing Some Images in Windows XP
Printing
9/5/2002 5:41:00 PM

320914
Problems Upgrading a User-Mode Print Driver By Using Point and Print
Printing
10/17/2002 6:10:00 AM

321623
An Access Violation Occurs in Spoolsv.exe in Windows 2000
Printing
10/11/2002 3:11:00 PM

322303
Cannot Print from the Network to a Windows XP Print Server
Printing
9/5/2002 6:05:00 PM

304140
File Security (Inherited) Permissions May Be Removed When You Remotely Edit
the Permissions
Security
10/11/2002 11:13:00 AM

305601
MS01-060: FIX: CRT String Format Functions May Underwrite Buffer
Security
10/11/2002 3:37:00 PM

308273
You Cannot Decrypt Files After You Reset Your Password with a Password-Reset
Disk
Security
9/5/2002 4:43:00 PM

308414
MS01-051: Patch Available for HTTP Request Encoding Vulnerability
Security
10/1/2002 4:54:00 PM

309073
Invalid Universal Plug and Play Request can Disrupt System Operation
Security
9/5/2002 4:54:00 PM

309521
Windows XP Update Package, October 25, 2001
Security
9/5/2002 4:51:00 PM

311486
A Program that Passes Invalid Screen Size Parameters Causes an Access
Violation
Security
10/11/2002 3:36:00 PM

311967
MS02-017: Unchecked Buffer in the Multiple UNC Provider
Security
10/14/2002 12:05:00 PM

313450
MS02-012: A Malformed Data Transfer Request May Cause the Windows SMTP
Service to Stop Working
Security
10/11/2002 3:35:00 PM

314147
MS02-006: An Unchecked Buffer in the SNMP Service May Allow Code to Run
Security
10/14/2002 12:05:00 PM

314339
MS02-018: Patch Available for Access Violation in URL Error Handling
Vulnerability
Security
9/5/2002 5:17:00 PM

314864
SSL Connection Does Not Work on Windows XP
Security
9/5/2002 5:14:00 PM

315000
Unchecked Buffer in Universal Plug and Play Can Lead to System Compromise
for Windows XP
Security
9/5/2002 5:26:00 PM

315092
An Attack on Port 1720 May Cause NetMeeting to Refuse Incoming Connections
Security
10/2/2002 11:09:00 AM

316994
Denied Access to Encrypted Files After You Change Your Password
Security
9/5/2002 5:20:00 PM

318138
MS02-029: Unchecked Buffer in Remote Access Service Phonebook Allows Code to
Run
Security
10/14/2002 12:05:00 PM

318449
PowerPoint Slide Show Turns Off Screen Saver and Ignores System Group Policy
Security
9/5/2002 5:43:00 PM

318873
The PKI Dialog Box Appears Multiple Times If You Click Cancel
Security
10/11/2002 4:10:00 PM

319458
Software Restriction Policies Do Not Recognize 16-Bit Programs
Security
9/5/2002 5:39:00 PM

319613
The SSL Session Cache Is Purged a Few Minutes After You Start Your Computer
Security
9/5/2002 5:37:00 PM

319733
MS02-018: April 2002 Cumulative Patch for Internet Information Services
Security
9/25/2002 2:35:00 PM

320008
You May Not Be Able to Shut Down Your Windows XP Computer
Security
9/5/2002 5:49:00 PM

321677
MS02-032: Patch Available for WMDM PMSP Service Vulnerability
Security
9/5/2002 5:54:00 PM

322097
Slow Browsing to Windows 98 or Windows Me Clients from Windows XP
Security
9/5/2002 6:05:00 PM

323172
MS02-048: Flaw in Certificate Enrollment Control May Cause Digital
Certificates to Be Deleted
Security
10/23/2002 7:06:00 AM

323475
A "Stop 0xc0000244" Error Occurs When You Audit Policy Changes If
CrashOnAuditFail Is Turned On
Security
9/5/2002 6:02:00 PM

324380
MS02-051: Cryptographic Flaw in RDP Protocol Can Cause Information
Disclosure
Security
10/11/2002 4:09:00 PM

324574
Certificate Does Not Display the Ampersand (&amp

in a Company Name
Security
10/10/2002 1:38:00 PM

326830
MS02-045: Unchecked Buffer in Network Share Provider May Lead to
Denial-of-Service
Security
10/14/2002 11:03:00 AM

328676
MS02-058: OLEXP: An Unchecked Buffer in Outlook Express S/MIME Parsing May
Permit System Compromise
Security
10/10/2002 3:36:00 PM

328940
MS02-060: Flaw in Windows XP Help and Support Center Could Enable File
Deletion
Security
10/16/2002 7:00:00 AM

329048
MS02-054: Unchecked Buffer in File Decompression Functions May Allow
Attacker to Run Code
Security
10/16/2002 4:22:00 PM

329350
Defined Actions for Administrative Alerts Do Not Occur When the Security Log
Is Full
Security
10/11/2002 11:17:00 AM

282784
fecheck.exe Verifies the Installation of Windows 2000 and Windows XP
Hotfixes
Setup
10/11/2002 3:47:00 PM

306458
AMD PowerNow! Functionality May Require a Driver for AMD Mobile Athlon 4 and
Duron Processors with Windows XP
Setup
9/5/2002 4:35:00 PM

306580
System May Become Unresponsive When Using a Modem
Setup
9/5/2002 4:35:00 PM

307316
Volume License Product ID Is Revealed During the Sysprep.exe Mini-Setup
Wizard
Setup
9/5/2002 4:33:00 PM

308131
You May Not Be Able to Sign Up for the Internet by Using a Modem
Setup
9/5/2002 4:45:00 PM

308402
'The Password Is Not Valid' Error Message Appears When You Log On to
Recovery Console in Windows XP
Setup
10/13/2002 9:56:00 AM

308676
Screen Stays Black for Several Minutes Before "Please Wait" Message Appears
After You Run Factory.exe
Setup
9/5/2002 4:55:00 PM

308677
Error Message Appears When a Limited User Tries to Stream Media in Windows
Media Player
Setup
10/17/2002 10:00:00 AM

308678
Changing International Settings May Cause Unpredictable Behavior
Setup
9/5/2002 4:55:00 PM

309495
Problems with Windows Installer Over Wireless Connection
Setup
9/5/2002 4:52:00 PM

310387
Windows Protection Error When You Attempt to Install Flash 5.0
Setup
9/5/2002 4:50:00 PM

310437
Cannot Start the UPS Service
Setup
9/5/2002 4:50:00 PM

311345
Long Delay with No Prompt Between the Time When You Click Finish and When
the Desktop Loads
Setup
9/5/2002 5:01:00 PM

311442
Error Message: Setup Cannot Continue. Please Contact Microsoft Technical
Support. (Error: 3E6h)
Setup
10/2/2002 12:57:00 PM

311446
You Cannot Start Programs (.exe Files) When Your Computer Is Infected with
the SirCam Virus
Setup
10/2/2002 1:01:00 PM

311781
How to Prevent the Out-of-Box Experience (OOBE) from Adjusting the Time on
the Computer
Setup
9/5/2002 4:57:00 PM

312131
The Owner Account Is Displayed As "Account Unknown" in Profiles on Windows
XP Home Edition-Based Computers
Setup
9/5/2002 5:09:00 PM

312368
Data Loss May Occur After Reinstalling, Repairing, or Upgrading Windows XP
Setup
9/5/2002 5:09:00 PM

312369
You May Lose Data or Program Settings After Reinstalling, Repairing, or
Upgrading Windows XP
Setup
10/2/2002 1:12:00 PM

313194
No Password Expiration Notice Is Presented During the Logon Process
Setup
9/5/2002 5:06:00 PM

313208
Driver Signing Does Not Work When the Out-Of-Box Experience Process
Initiates a Factory Mode Process
Setup
9/5/2002 5:06:00 PM

313532
A Logon Error Occurs After an Unattended Installation Is Completed
Setup
9/5/2002 5:20:00 PM

314582
List of Fixes That Are Included in the Windows XP Dynamic Update 1.2 Package
Setup
9/5/2002 5:16:00 PM

315074
Error Message: The Operating System Image You Selected Does Not Contain the
Necessary Drivers for Your Network Adapter. Try Selecting a Different
Operating System Image. If the Problem Persists, Contact Your System
Administrator.
Setup
10/11/2002 3:35:00 PM

316134
You Cannot Log On to Windows XP After Running the Out-of-Box Experience
Setup
9/5/2002 5:23:00 PM

316309
Windows Installer Error 1619 When You Install from NTFS-Protected
Directories
Setup
10/11/2002 3:35:00 PM

320306
PRB: Oemlogo.bmp Partially Truncated in System Properties Dialog Box
Setup
9/5/2002 5:47:00 PM

322069
List of Fixes That Are Included in the Windows XP Dynamic Update 1.3 Package
Setup
9/5/2002 6:06:00 PM

322674
Setting the Display to Large Size Causes the EULA Screen to Appear
Incorrectly
Setup
9/5/2002 6:04:00 PM

322811
IEAK User Rights Deployment Build Is Not Installed If Windows Installer 2.0
Is Installed
Setup
10/11/2002 3:10:00 PM

325041
A "Stop 0x7B" Error Occurs After Using Riprep with an ALI Chipset
Setup
9/5/2002 6:09:00 PM

325707
Windows File Protection Cannot Restore Files from a Mapped Network Drive
Setup
9/5/2002 6:08:00 PM

325801
The Modem Country Code May Not Match the Telephony Location
Setup
9/9/2002 5:59:00 AM

297760
Error Message: The Recycle Bin on C:\ Is Corrupt or Invalid. Do You Want to
Empty the Recycle Bin for this...
Shell
10/11/2002 3:40:00 PM

299899
Setting the ClearType Option for an Unattend Setup Does Not Work
Shell
9/5/2002 4:38:00 PM

305822
Failure Events Are Logged When the Welcome Screen Is Enabled
Shell
9/5/2002 4:36:00 PM

306676
The Computer Cannot Enter Standby or Hibernate If a Direct3D-Based Screen
Saver Is Running
Shell
9/5/2002 4:34:00 PM

307274
Windows XP Stops Responding (Hangs) During Windows Shutdown
Shell
9/5/2002 4:33:00 PM

307401
Handle Leak May Prevent Profiles From Unloading on Windows XP
Shell
9/5/2002 4:33:00 PM

307419
Services Are Delayed or Do Not Start with the Windows XP Multilingual User
Interface Pack Installed
Shell
10/17/2002 5:17:00 PM

308414
MS01-051: Patch Available for HTTP Request Encoding Vulnerability
Shell
10/1/2002 4:54:00 PM

308415
Files Missing or Corrupted After You Click Telnet URL
Shell
9/5/2002 4:41:00 PM

308678
Changing International Settings May Cause Unpredictable Behavior
Shell
9/5/2002 4:55:00 PM

309428
Cannot Add Local Users with the User Accounts Tool if Computer Is a Domain
Member
Shell
9/5/2002 4:52:00 PM

309447
Content Search Does Not Search All File Types for the Specified String
Shell
9/5/2002 4:52:00 PM

311455
You Cannot View the Files on a Disc After You Replace a CD-R or CD-RW Drive
with a DVD or CD-ROM Drive
Shell
9/5/2002 4:59:00 PM

311486
A Program that Passes Invalid Screen Size Parameters Causes an Access
Violation
Shell
10/11/2002 3:36:00 PM

311514
The Thrustmaster Dance Pad May Not Work Correctly in Windows XP
Shell
9/5/2002 4:58:00 PM

312473
"File Does Not Exist" Error Message When You Try to Open Cached Files When
You Are Offline
Shell
10/11/2002 3:35:00 PM

313596
Cannot Select a .jpg Image as Your Desktop Background Image
Shell
9/5/2002 5:19:00 PM

314228
The Windows XP Taskbar May Stop Responding for Some Time
Shell
9/9/2002 6:28:00 AM

314448
Msconfig.exe Stops Responding if User Is Not an Administrator
Shell
9/5/2002 5:16:00 PM

314918
Subfolders Are Always Available Offline
Shell
10/29/2002 5:52:55 AM

314939
Incorrect Contents Are Displayed in Windows Explorer
Shell
9/5/2002 5:14:00 PM

315094
Windows Explorer May Stop Responding When You Close a Window
Shell
9/5/2002 5:25:00 PM

316116
New Internet Explorer 6 Policies Are Not Available in Windows 2000
Shell
10/23/2002 11:34:00 AM

316253
"Tour of Windows XP" and "Windows Newsgroups" Links in Windows XP Help and
Support Do Not Work
Shell
9/5/2002 5:23:00 PM

316982
Default French (Canada) Locale Settings for Long Date and Currency Do Not
Match the Quebec Standard
Shell
9/5/2002 5:21:00 PM

317159
A Program That Is Running at Real Time Can Lock Windows XP If Themes Are
Enabled
Shell
10/21/2002 3:58:00 PM

317181
Cannot Transfer Images From Your Nikon Digital Camera
Shell
9/5/2002 5:34:00 PM

317751
Explorer.exe Process Uses Many CPU Cycles When Windows Is Idle
Shell
3/25/2004 8:00:00 AM

318365
Cannot Print a Large Paper Size at High Resolution
Shell
10/10/2002 3:36:00 PM

318388
The Original Keyboard Layout Is Used After You Configure a New Default Input
Method Editor
Shell
9/5/2002 5:43:00 PM

318517
Search Tool Does Not Search for Some Words or Phrases in Text Files
Shell
9/5/2002 5:42:00 PM

318727
Text Overlaps When You View Excel Spreadsheets That Are Saved as HTML Files
Shell
9/5/2002 5:42:00 PM

318872
Incorrect Sort Order in Windows Explorer in Windows XP
Shell
9/5/2002 5:42:00 PM

318966
Problems Viewing, Editing, or Printing Some Images in Windows XP
Shell
9/5/2002 5:41:00 PM

319261
Graphics That Are Rendered by GDI+ Cannot Be Magnified by Screen Magnifiers
Shell
9/5/2002 5:40:00 PM

319598
You Cannot Install the Windows XP Multilingual User Interface Pack from a
Long Path
Shell
9/5/2002 5:38:00 PM

319740
MFC Applications Leak GDI Objects on Windows XP
Shell
9/5/2002 5:50:00 PM

320273
Subfolders of a Web Folder Are Not Enumerated in the Folders Pane in Windows
XP
Shell
9/5/2002 5:47:00 PM

320368
The Richedit Text Control May Replace CRLF in the Output
Shell
9/5/2002 5:46:00 PM

320507
Internet Explorer Does Not Retry Bad Proxy Server for 30 Minutes
Shell
10/1/2002 4:54:00 PM

320721
Increasing Connection Limits with InternetSetOption() Does Not Affect
Visited Servers
Shell
10/1/2002 4:54:00 PM

320882
Internet Explorer May Display Only Part of an EMF Image
Shell
9/5/2002 1:08:00 PM

320987
The Program Count for the Most Frequently Used Programs List Is Not Used
Shell
9/5/2002 5:58:00 PM

321017
You Cannot Gain Access to "My Computer" Information in Help and Support
Center
Shell
9/5/2002 5:58:00 PM

321788
STDIN/STDOUT Redirection May Not Work If Started from a File Association
Shell
10/24/2002 11:37:00 AM

321841
Access Violation When You Displaying Comctl32 Version 5 Image List with
Comctl32 Version 6
Shell
9/5/2002 6:06:00 PM

323513
"Hide Specified Control Panel Applets" Policy Does Not Work in Windows XP
Shell
9/5/2002 6:01:00 PM

323571
FIX: STI Application Stops Responding When You Try to Use UnLockDevice() to
Unlock the Device
Shell
9/5/2002 6:01:00 PM

324002
Searching Files Across a Network May Leave Open Files
Shell
9/5/2002 6:00:00 PM

304140
File Security (Inherited) Permissions May Be Removed When You Remotely Edit
the Permissions
Management/Administration
10/11/2002 11:13:00 AM

304288
A Task That Is Scheduled with the AT Command May Stop After 72 Hours
Management/Administration
10/11/2002 3:38:00 PM

307869
Files and Settings Are Not Transferred When You Use the Files and Settings
Transfer Wizard
Management/Administration
9/5/2002 4:45:00 PM

308210
Remote Assistance May Not Connect to a Multiple-Homed Windows XP Computer
with the Personal Firewall Feature Enabled
Management/Administration
9/5/2002 4:44:00 PM

308276
You Cannot Stop a Counter Log in Performance Monitor
Management/Administration
9/5/2002 4:43:00 PM

309056
Error Message: 'All.part2' Is Null or Not an Object
Management/Administration
9/5/2002 4:54:00 PM

309521
Windows XP Update Package, October 25, 2001
Management/Administration
9/5/2002 4:51:00 PM

310601
Computer Does Not Enter Standby Mode If Power Options Profile Is Set to
Standby After 45 or More Minutes
Management/Administration
10/28/2002 7:52:40 AM

311243
Poor Performance with File and Print Services for NetWare
Management/Administration
10/11/2002 3:36:00 PM

311444
Creator/Owner Rights Are Removed by Policy Editor
Management/Administration
10/11/2002 3:36:00 PM

313147
GetNtmsObjectAttribute Does Not Return Correct Size When the Buffer Is Too
Small
Management/Administration
9/5/2002 5:07:00 PM

313450
MS02-012: A Malformed Data Transfer Request May Cause the Windows SMTP
Service to Stop Working
Management/Administration
10/11/2002 3:35:00 PM

314445
Mobile Information Server Administration Tools Do Not Work with Windows XP
Management/Administration
9/5/2002 5:17:00 PM

314862
Update Available for the Background Intelligent Transfer Service
Management/Administration
9/5/2002 5:14:00 PM

316309
Windows Installer Error 1619 When You Install from NTFS-Protected
Directories
Management/Administration
10/11/2002 3:35:00 PM

317277
You Receive a "System Has Recovered from a Serious Error" Message After
Every Restart
Management/Administration
9/5/2002 5:33:00 PM

318449
PowerPoint Slide Show Turns Off Screen Saver and Ignores System Group Policy
Management/Administration
9/5/2002 5:43:00 PM

319111
Windows XP RIS Client Loses Video or Stops Responding While "Starting
Windows" Is Displayed
Management/Administration
10/29/2002 5:50:50 AM

319322
Windows Management Instrumentation Cannot Register Permanent Event Consumer
with Dynamic Classes
Management/Administration
9/5/2002 5:39:00 PM

320258
Windows XP Does Not Synchronize the Time Outside a Client's Site
Management/Administration
9/5/2002 5:48:00 PM

320678
WMI AccessCheck Receives Local Administrator's SID
Management/Administration
9/5/2002 5:45:00 PM

321047
The Format() Function Gives Different Results in Windows XP Than in Windows
2000
Management/Administration
10/17/2002 5:32:00 PM

321120
Tasks That Are Scheduled from 00:00 to 00:59 Appear as "Never"
Management/Administration
9/5/2002 5:57:00 PM

321121
The "Y" and "N" Responses for Schtasks.exe Are Not Localized
Management/Administration
9/5/2002 5:56:00 PM

321395
VarCyFromStr() Returns an Incorrect Value in Windows XP
Management/Administration
9/16/2002 7:09:00 AM

322103
Relog Command Creates Damaged .blg Files in Windows XP
Management/Administration
9/5/2002 6:05:00 PM

322811
IEAK User Rights Deployment Build Is Not Installed If Windows Installer 2.0
Is Installed
Management/Administration
10/11/2002 3:10:00 PM

322852
"Error: Access Denied" Error Message When You Run the Ggpresult.exe Tool
Management/Administration
10/28/2002 3:44:47 PM

322936
Joining a Sysprep.exe Image of Windows XP Creates Duplicate Computer
Accounts in Active Directory
Management/Administration
9/5/2002 6:03:00 PM

323289
Memory Leak in WDM Provider's ExecMethodAsync Method in Windows XP and
Windows 2000
Management/Administration
9/5/2002 6:03:00 PM

323299
The StgCreateDocFile() Function Causes an "STG_E_FILEALREADYEXISTS" Error in
Windows XP
Management/Administration
9/5/2002 6:02:00 PM

324002
Searching Files Across a Network May Leave Open Files
Management/Administration
9/5/2002 6:00:00 PM

325945
The WinNT Provider Returns an Incorrect Number of Domains in a Network
Management/Administration
10/11/2002 3:06:00 PM

--
w:4

Curtis Bass · Jun 25, 2004

"Sten Solberg" <stens@powertech.no> wrote in message news:<4RR8ymkuyquO-pn2-dcj3bdSWzQ50@localhost>...

On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 15:42:45 UTC, cmbass_us@yahoo.com (Curtis Bass) wrote:

Well, out of the box, OS/2 does lack local file system security (...)

When will you ever learn, Curtis? Out of the box, OS/2 does have some security
which, when applied, also secures the file system.

Perhaps, if we use an extremely abstract and superficial meaning of
"secures the file system". However, generally speaking, when one
speaks of "file system security", one is speaking of a mechanism built
into the file system which governs access to each file according to
user access-levels and permissions. FAT and HPFS have no such
mechanism, and I do not believe that JFS does either. Why would they?
After all, OS/2 is a _SINGLE_ _USER_ operating system, and that is
the point. Based on this understanding of what is truly _meant_ by
"file system security", my statement stands.

We have been over this
before, so why do you persist in short-changing OS/2?

Since when is presenting facts "sort-changing OS/2"?

Curtis

Sten Solberg · Jun 26, 2004

On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 18:26:54 UTC, cmbass_us@yahoo.com (Curtis Bass) wrote:

"Sten Solberg" <stens@powertech.no> wrote in message news:<4RR8ymkuyquO-pn2-dcj3bdSWzQ50@localhost>...
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 15:42:45 UTC, cmbass_us@yahoo.com (Curtis Bass) wrote:

Well, out of the box, OS/2 does lack local file system security (...)

When will you ever learn, Curtis? Out of the box, OS/2 does have some security
which, when applied, also secures the file system.

Perhaps, if we use an extremely abstract and superficial meaning of
"secures the file system". However, generally speaking, when one
speaks of "file system security", one is speaking of a mechanism built
into the file system which governs access to each file according to
user access-levels and permissions. FAT and HPFS have no such
mechanism, and I do not believe that JFS does either. Why would they?
After all, OS/2 is a _SINGLE_ _USER_ operating system, and that is
the point. Based on this understanding of what is truly _meant_ by
"file system security", my statement stands.

Well, on the - your - premise that OS/2 is a single user system, it seems rather
specious to knock it for lacking local file system security as per your
definition, which presupposes a multi-user setup. I agree with your definition
of local file system security as such, but the point is that OS/2, being a
single user system, does not need this specific type of security: it is
sufficient to just block access to the system as a whole. Who would complain?
Surely not the single user with the password.

We have been over this
before, so why do you persist in short-changing OS/2?

Since when is presenting facts "sort-changing OS/2"?

Your facts were misleading, and more so by your own, subsequent, premise.

--
Best regards
Sten Solberg

.... Also sprach Zarathustra: "Have a Good Day!"

Hugh O'Hare · Jun 26, 2004

On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 17:01:57, cmbass_us@yahoo.com (Curtis Bass) wrote:

"Windows had TCP/IP stack support back in *'89*.
(Trumpet Winsock was a 3rd party addon product
that filled the bill in the 3.1 days.)"

We know how good that was!

Well, out of the box, OS/2 does lack local file system security and
multi-user access, and the 3rd party add-on that provides it is a beta
port of Linux code. Which, of course, leads to the obvious question:

Partly correct. multi-user access is there. Protection limiting what
those users can do on a workstation once they have logged in is
another matter. Windows is no better than OS/2 in this regard. In both
environments, once you move to the server platform things change with
the server providing the security. But that's how client server
mechanisms were originally intended to work. You could scale down the
terminal unit to the bare minimum with the server doing all the hard
work and providing client level security.

Why not just use Linux, instead of porting all of this Linux/GNU code
over to the OS/2 kernel?

Lot's of reasons. In fact, I use both and like each for its strengths.

Well and good, until you consider that the Workplace Shell (WPS for
short) is not supported by its vendor, and rendered more irrelevant
with each passing day.

Utter crap!

The point I am making is that much "development" on OS/2 seems to be
little more than porting OSS/GNU code

You like to reinvent the wheel? That's a real waste of time.
Thankfully scientists and engineers spend their time trying to learn
from each other, preventing mistakes recurring and building on what
they get right! Real progress is made that way.

, and little of what I see is

WPS-specific, or even WPS-integrated, which, again, translates into
the WPS becoming more irrelevant. Also, those native WPS-aware OS/2
applications that do exist are, for the most part, frozen and stagnant

I doubt Lotus would be too pleased to hear you say that.

The WPS is Just A Shell, after all, no matter how fancy or polished it
may be. It's just a tool, not nirvana.

How integrated does a shell have to be to be useful? In Lotus
Organiser e.g. I can drag and drop an address onto the printer object
(note the legitimate use of the term object) and have it print
instantly on a label or any other form of stationery I wish. The
reason being that the desktop layer in the WPS is itself an object and
hence complies with all the rules of inheritance as with all the other
objects on the desktop. They are far more than just icons where under
windows the links break if you change a file name or move it to
another location. In Lotus Organiser I mentioned, try the operation I
just described. You'll be waiting a long time. What you must do is
open the print dialogue window, manually select the entry or range you
wish to print followed by print. Very unweildy!
The WPS is rather more than 'just a shell' as you state and if it
seems to be nirvana to you, it may be you set your personal sights too
low. Fot those of us who use it regularly, there is nothing to match
it for simplicity in use and effectiveness in operation.

And yes, I used it exclusively for several years, and no, I don't see
it as anything special.

You are either lying or you have never tried to use it to its full
potential.

As far as I'm concerned, the Windows shell
has caught up to the WPS in the important areas

Firstly, by the windows shell, I presume you are referring to explorer
which is integrated with the core OS. You have one choice. Use
explorer or have a dead and utterly useless system. Nice choice! With
OS/2 WPS like other OS runs as an application and you can run any
other shell you like. That means choice and scope for development e.g.
multiple desktop applications, remote access working capability across
platforms etc. Yes Windows is really flexible. Do it the MS way if
they allow it or don't!
So given that explorer is not a shell and it has in any even caught up
with WPS, tell me directly how you reach that conclusion. Where are
the similarlities, the equivalent functionalities, the flexibility and
the cross platform compatability.

and GNOME/KDE are
closing in.

Gnome and KDE are at least shells and very good ones. KDE won the
award for the best desktop recently but while infinitely better than
explorer, does not come close to WPS.
Personally my preference is for KDE although aesthetically Gnome has
improved greatly.

Frankly, advocating the WPS is nothing more than
religion,

Now where have I heard that one before?

as I see it. I see no rationale behind using it when it
means doing without so many things that Windows and Linux provide,

Are we talking about the WPS as a shell here or have we diverted into
a discussion of operating systems and applications?

such as good development tools and environments, full exploitation of
current hardware, and yes, the wide choice of applications (not just
MS-Office).

As it happens OS/2 is a very capable OS with a wide range of
applications available for it and in the case of Linux it can run MS
Office very nicely under WINE. It's becoming more the case that there
is very little of a compelling reason to run windows except in a few
niche areas for specialised software which at the moment is configured
only for windows. Have you considered what happens to those
applications as windows is overtaken and forced actually into the
position you imagine for OS/2 at the moment?

My understanding is that the knowledge to do effective WPS programming
is evaporating

Really! Where did you source that infomation, or is this another
figment of your fertile imagination.

The flipped question, obviously, is why those couldn't be ported to
Linux.
I do not know the answer to that, as I'm not familiar enough with OS/2.

But you used the WPS exclusively I heard you say! Changing you tune
now, or is the truth beginning to appear...another Windows evangelist.

Much of OS/2, including the WPS, was written by third parties
(including Microsoft, MicroGrafix, and Adobe, I believe) and licensed
to IBM for inclusion into the product.

Well that's original! Considering Microsoft and IBM were originally
partners. Most of the current MS application offerings are rebranded
products which MS is now offereing under MS labels. An example would
be Visio.

This licensing prevents the
porting of many sections of code, and what can be ported may not be
functional without that which cannot be ported.

Exactly the problem with MS which has led them to so much trouble in
recent years. That and their rip off pricing policy.

Also, there doesn't
appear to be any business reason for IBM to open what source it can,
and frankly, I doubt that there is enough programming talent in the
active OS/2 community to do anything with such code even if it _were_
made available. This isn't a slight against OS/2 programmers, btw;
I'm not saying that OS/2 programmers aren't talented, only that there
aren't enough of them to make a difference.

So! How many do you need?

Frankly, all things considered, to me it simply makes more sense to
take the best concepts of WPS and OS/2, and re-implement them on
Linux, and I view GNOME (for example) as a decent start.

Well, at least you didn't advocate Windows!

Hugh

David H. McCoy · Jun 26, 2004

In article <163715e7.0406250901.759d8cfa@posting.google.com>,
cmbass_us@yahoo.com says...

My understanding is that the knowledge to do effective WPS programming
is evaporating -- relatively few programmers know the ins and outs of
WPS programming, and documentation is not that easy to find. Can you
even do WPS programming with GCC? Regardless, WPS and its underlying
SOM are not well supported at all.

What's worse, if you even do a search on job engines for OS/2 you don't
find very little or almost none.

You'll find nothing.

--
--------------------------------------
David H. McCoy

--------------------------------------

David H. McCoy · Jun 26, 2004

In article <163715e7.0406251026.2dcbfcac@posting.google.com>,
cmbass_us@yahoo.com says...

"Sten Solberg" <stens@powertech.no> wrote in message news:<4RR8ymkuyquO-pn2-dcj3bdSWzQ50@localhost>...
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 15:42:45 UTC, cmbass_us@yahoo.com (Curtis Bass) wrote:

Well, out of the box, OS/2 does lack local file system security (...)

When will you ever learn, Curtis? Out of the box, OS/2 does have some security
which, when applied, also secures the file system.

Perhaps, if we use an extremely abstract and superficial meaning of
"secures the file system". However, generally speaking, when one
speaks of "file system security", one is speaking of a mechanism built
into the file system which governs access to each file according to
user access-levels and permissions. FAT and HPFS have no such
mechanism, and I do not believe that JFS does either. Why would they?
After all, OS/2 is a _SINGLE_ _USER_ operating system, and that is
the point. Based on this understanding of what is truly _meant_ by
"file system security", my statement stands.

We have been over this
before, so why do you persist in short-changing OS/2?

Since when is presenting facts "sort-changing OS/2"?

Curtis

Why even argue with him, Curtis? If he isn't educated enough to know

that OS/2, out of the box no more supports security than it does
multiple processors, he'll never understand.

I wonder if that one company who wrote that OS/2 security add on is even
still in business?

--
--------------------------------------
David H. McCoy

--------------------------------------

Curtis Bass · Jun 26, 2004

"Sten Solberg" <stens@powertech.no> wrote in message news:<4RR8ymkuyquO-pn2-HNd3xLd22D76@localhost>...

On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 18:26:54 UTC, cmbass_us@yahoo.com (Curtis Bass) wrote:

"Sten Solberg" <stens@powertech.no> wrote in message news:<4RR8ymkuyquO-pn2-dcj3bdSWzQ50@localhost>...
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 15:42:45 UTC, cmbass_us@yahoo.com (Curtis Bass) wrote:

Well, out of the box, OS/2 does lack local file system security (...)

When will you ever learn, Curtis? Out of the box, OS/2 does have some security
which, when applied, also secures the file system.

Perhaps, if we use an extremely abstract and superficial meaning of
"secures the file system". However, generally speaking, when one
speaks of "file system security", one is speaking of a mechanism built
into the file system which governs access to each file according to
user access-levels and permissions. FAT and HPFS have no such
mechanism, and I do not believe that JFS does either. Why would they?
After all, OS/2 is a _SINGLE_ _USER_ operating system, and that is
the point. Based on this understanding of what is truly _meant_ by
"file system security", my statement stands.

Well, on the - your - premise that OS/2 is a single user system, it seems rather
specious to knock it for lacking local file system security as per your
definition, which presupposes a multi-user setup.

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=163715e7.0406230742.43a6f4d1%40posting.google.com&output=gplain

MMI] I just can't wait until some of you comes here into COOA ranting
MMI] about NT's local security and OS/2's lack of it.

CB] Well, out of the box, OS/2 does lack local file system security
CB] and multi-user access, and the 3rd party add-on that provides it
CB] is a beta port of Linux code.

As you should clearly see, I acknowledged this "presupposition" going
out the gate. Apparently, you either forgot that or simply ignored
it, only to subsequently try to accuse me of being "specious". Again,
as you should clearly see, such an accusation is totally unwarranted.

You are guilty of splitting my statement into two fragments,
criticizing the first fragment based on an erroneous (or, at the very
least, questionable) understanding of what "file system security"
means, and then, once you were corrected on that issue, subsequently
criticizing the first fragment for not taking the second fragment into
account, effectively pretending that the second fragment didn't exist,
or only existed "subsequently". This is clearly indicated in how you
quoted me:

"Well, out of the box, OS/2 does lack local file
system security (...)"

I can almost come to the conclusion that you are more interested in
trying to score point than resolve issues.

I agree with your definition of local file system security as such, but
the point is that OS/2, being a single user system, does not need this
specific type of security:

You have essentially restated what I have already said. My position
is that OS/2 is less secure by virtue of its being a single-user
system.

it is sufficient to just block access to the system as a whole. Who would complain?
Surely not the single user with the password.

"It is sufficient to just block access to the system as a whole"
applies to all OSes, regardless of whether they are multi- or
single-user. The point is that having multi-user access simply
provides another level of security that OS/2, being single-user,
lacks. Does this simple statement of fact qualify as "knocking" OS/2?

We have been over this
before, so why do you persist in short-changing OS/2?

Since when is presenting facts "sort-changing OS/2"?

Your facts were misleading, and more so by your own, subsequent, premise.

On the contrary, you should check your own "facts" -- my "premise" was
_anything_but_ "subsequent", as I have clearly shown. And how can
facts, if truthful and accurate, be "misleading"? If anything is
"misleading", I would say it's your fast'n'loose interpretation of
"secures the file system".

Bottom Line: My statements were not in error, but your subsequent
criticisms of said statements were.

Curtis

Curtis Bass · Jun 26, 2004

hugh.ohare@btinternet.com (Hugh O'Hare) wrote in message news:<XRGTUPwIjPYh-pn2-wxKViXSddQln@localhost>...

On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 17:01:57, cmbass_us@yahoo.com (Curtis Bass) wrote:

"Windows had TCP/IP stack support back in *'89*.
(Trumpet Winsock was a 3rd party addon product
that filled the bill in the 3.1 days.)"

We know how good that was!

Yup. It was _good_ _enough_ to get the job done.

Well, out of the box, OS/2 does lack local file system security
and multi-user access, and the 3rd party add-on that provides it
is a beta port of Linux code. Which, of course, leads to the
obvious question:

Partly correct.

No, completely correct.

multi-user access is there.

In client-side OS/2? You're kidding, right?

Protection limiting what those users can do on a workstation once
they have logged in is another matter.

Since when do users "log in" to OS/2? No, getting to the desktop
doesn't require "logging in" unless you have "lockup" enabled, which
is an extremely superficial concept of "logging in".

And not having "protection limiting what those users can do on a
workstation" kind of proves that there is no "multi-user" access in
the first place. I mean, geez, based on your arguments, DR-DOS 6.0
was a multi-user system -- it had a password logon screen, after all.

Windows is no better than OS/2 in this regard.

Geez, you're ignorant.

In both
environments, once you move to the server platform things change with
the server providing the security. But that's how client server
mechanisms were originally intended to work. You could scale down the
terminal unit to the bare minimum with the server doing all the hard
work and providing client level security.

Your ramble above is laughable nonsense.

Why not just use Linux, instead of porting all of this Linux/GNU
code
over to the OS/2 kernel?

Lot's of reasons.

Yet you fail to provide even one. Hardly surprising.

In fact, I use both and like each for its strengths.

Good for you, I suppose.

Well and good, until you consider that the Workplace Shell (WPS for
short) is not supported by its vendor, and rendered more irrelevant
with each passing day.

Utter crap!

I see that you provide no elaboration for your emotional ejaculation.
I my post, I explained _why_ the WPS is "rendered more irrelevant with
each passing day", but all you can do is sputter out a monosyllabic
froth as a rebuttal.

The point I am making is that much "development" on OS/2 seems to be
little more than porting OSS/GNU code

You like to reinvent the wheel? That's a real waste of time.
Thankfully scientists and engineers spend their time trying to learn
from each other, preventing mistakes recurring and building on what
they get right! Real progress is made that way.

"Real progress" would be taking that GNU code and _integrating_ it
into the WPS, but that isn't being done, at least, not to much of a
degree.

, and little of what I see is

WPS-specific, or even WPS-integrated, which, again, translates into
the WPS becoming more irrelevant. Also, those native WPS-aware OS/2
applications that do exist are, for the most part, frozen and
stagnant

I doubt Lotus would be too pleased to hear you say that.

I couldn't care less what Lotus thinks. When was the last release of
SmartSuite 1.7x? When is 2.x due? Hell, when is 1.8x due?

The WPS is Just A Shell, after all, no matter how fancy or polished
it
may be. It's just a tool, not nirvana.

How integrated does a shell have to be to be useful? In Lotus
Organiser e.g. I can drag and drop an address onto the printer object
(note the legitimate use of the term object) and have it print
instantly on a label or any other form of stationery I wish. The
reason being that the desktop layer in the WPS is itself an object and
hence complies with all the rules of inheritance as with all the other
objects on the desktop. They are far more than just icons where under
windows the links break if you change a file name or move it to
another location. In Lotus Organiser I mentioned, try the operation I
just described. You'll be waiting a long time. What you must do is
open the print dialogue window, manually select the entry or range you
wish to print followed by print. Very unweildy!
The WPS is rather more than 'just a shell' as you state and if it
seems to be nirvana to you, it may be you set your personal sights too
low. Fot those of us who use it regularly, there is nothing to match
it for simplicity in use and effectiveness in operation.

Geez, I'm not sure where to even begin. For starters, your Windows
info is hopelessly dated -- shortcuts have been able to track file
movements for years now. As far as your drag and drop example, so
what? All you are saying is that WPS has more polish that the Windows
shell, but the bottom line is that your task can be accomplished in
Windows, even if it requires using dialogs (which may not even be the
case, but I don't have Organizer for Windows and have no desire to
procure a copy just to try your experiment). Finally, learn how to
comprehend English -- I never said that the WPS was nirvana, and, in
fact, quite clearly stated the exact opposite. It's you OS/2
Advocates who try to portray the WPS as nirvana, and your drag and
drop example is an illustration of that.

And yes, I used it exclusively for several years, and no, I don't
see
it as anything special.

You are either lying or you have never tried to use it to its full
potential.

Of course. When confronted with facts you don't like, scream "liar!".
Very convincing.

As for using the WPS to its potential, who is to say? I did use
templates extensively, and drag-and-drop. I never did use Organizer,
just played with it a couple of times (in both Windows and OS/2). But
yes, I have draged and dropped documents onto printer icons in OS/2
and Windows, and even Linux, so what is your point? Oh, that's right.
WPS has more polish wrt more obscure tasks.

As far as I'm concerned, the Windows shell
has caught up to the WPS in the important areas

Firstly, by the windows shell, I presume you are referring to explorer
which is integrated with the core OS. You have one choice. Use
explorer or have a dead and utterly useless system. Nice choice! With
OS/2 WPS like other OS runs as an application and you can run any
other shell you like. That means choice and scope for development e.g.
multiple desktop applications, remote access working capability across
platforms etc. Yes Windows is really flexible. Do it the MS way if
they allow it or don't!

My god . . .

Alternate shells are available for Windows, if you choose to use them.
And the default shell is extensible. For example, Object Zip makes
zip files look like part of the file system -- you can unzip files
simply by opening the folder that represents the zip file, and
dragging zipped files out into a regular folder, just like moving or
copying a regular file.

So given that explorer is not a shell and it has in any even caught up
with WPS, tell me directly how you reach that conclusion. Where are
the similarlities, the equivalent functionalities, the flexibility and
the cross platform compatability.

They're all there, Hugh, but the individual examples are too numerous
to list, although I have already mentioned a couple.

But hey, here is a couple more. I can right click in explorer (right
pane) and select New->Word Document (for example) and a new document
appears, ready to be renamed. After renaming, just hit enter twice to
bring up Word with the new document loaded. This works for all Office
documents, and can work with and file type. I have already had
discussions with Johnson and Sten Solberg regarding other
functionality, such as creating folders and moving/copying files, all
done with drag and drop. Hell, I consider at least one Windows method
of creating folders superior to OS/2's method(s), and have stated as
much elsewhere.

and GNOME/KDE are
closing in.

Gnome and KDE are at least shells and very good ones. KDE won the
award for the best desktop recently but while infinitely better than
explorer, does not come close to WPS.
Personally my preference is for KDE although aesthetically Gnome has
improved greatly.

Opinions noted.

Frankly, advocating the WPS is nothing more than
religion,

Now where have I heard that one before?

Who knows, and, more importantly, who cares?

as I see it. I see no rationale behind using it when it
means doing without so many things that Windows and Linux provide,

Are we talking about the WPS as a shell here or have we diverted into
a discussion of operating systems and applications?

Geez, learn to read. Do you not comprehend "such as"?

such as good development tools and environments, full exploitation
of
current hardware, and yes, the wide choice of applications (not just
MS-Office).

As it happens OS/2 is a very capable OS with a wide range of
applications available for it and in the case of Linux it can run MS
Office very nicely under WINE. It's becoming more the case that there
is very little of a compelling reason to run windows except in a few
niche areas for specialised software which at the moment is configured
only for windows. Have you considered what happens to those
applications as windows is overtaken and forced actually into the
position you imagine for OS/2 at the moment?

David T. Johnson-like ramble noted. And I am not "imagining" OS/2
position in the industry. No, it's your "fertile imagination" that
makes OS/2 into something it isn't. It's your "fertile imagination"
that sees "specialised software which at the moment is configured only
for windows" when it's obvious that such software will never be ported
to OS/2. Hell, Oracle is at version 10g now, but the last OS/2
version is 7.x. Similarly for DB/2, which is an _IBM_ _Product_ !!!
What ERP solutions are available for OS/2? When _will_ they be
available? How about CRM? Content Management?

PeopleTools is an ERP development environment for developing and
customizong PeopleSoft applications. This tool "at the moment is
configured only for windows". When will it be available for OS/2,
Hugh?

SQR is a reporting language with integrated SQL support, and can be
used for general-purpose database batch processing. This tool "at the
moment is configured only for windows" and UNIX. When will it be
available for OS/2, Hugh?

It's your "fertile imagination" that sees "very little of a compelling
reason to run windows", when the industry clearly disagrees.

My understanding is that the knowledge to do effective WPS
programming
is evaporating

Really! Where did you source that infomation, or is this another
figment of your fertile imagination.

Observation, Hugh. Not imagination. What has happened to God-knows
how many OS/2 ISVs? Did all of those programmers who did abandon OS/2
and go to Windows keep their WPS skills honed? You are obviously in a
deep state of denial, Hugh, but that's your prerogative, I suppose.

The flipped question, obviously, is why those couldn't be ported to
Linux.

I do not know the answer to that, as I'm not familiar enough with
OS/2.

But you used the WPS exclusively I heard you say! Changing you tune
now, or is the truth beginning to appear...another Windows evangelist.

You need to learn how to comprehend attributions. Both statements
above yours were made by The Ghost In The Machine, not me.

Much of OS/2, including the WPS, was written by third parties
(including Microsoft, MicroGrafix, and Adobe, I believe) and
licensed
to IBM for inclusion into the product.

Well that's original! Considering Microsoft and IBM were originally
partners. Most of the current MS application offerings are rebranded
products which MS is now offereing under MS labels. An example would
be Visio.

How is any of that relevant? And I notice that you do not even bother
to address MicroGrafix or Adobe. I guess Microsoft holds special
meaning to you.

This licensing prevents the
porting of many sections of code, and what can be ported may not be
functional without that which cannot be ported.

Exactly the problem with MS which has led them to so much trouble in
recent years. That and their rip off pricing policy.

Still ignoring MicroGrafix and Adobe, I see.

Also, there doesn't
appear to be any business reason for IBM to open what source it can,
and frankly, I doubt that there is enough programming talent in the
active OS/2 community to do anything with such code even if it
_were_
made available. This isn't a slight against OS/2 programmers, btw;
I'm not saying that OS/2 programmers aren't talented, only that
there
aren't enough of them to make a difference.

So! How many do you need?

Enough to make a difference. Reading comprehension problems?

Frankly, all things considered, to me it simply makes more sense to
take the best concepts of WPS and OS/2, and re-implement them on
Linux, and I view GNOME (for example) as a decent start.

Well, at least you didn't advocate Windows!

What would be the point?

Curtis

Jun 26, 2004

David H. McCoy writes:

Why even argue with him, Curtis? If he isn't educated enough to know
that OS/2, out of the box no more supports security than it does
multiple processors, he'll never understand.

How ironic, coming from someone who isn't educated enough to know
that OS/2, out of the box, supports security and multiple processors.

Sten Solberg · Jun 27, 2004

On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 17:53:11 UTC, cmbass_us@yahoo.com (Curtis Bass) wrote:

"Sten Solberg" <stens@powertech.no> wrote in message news:<4RR8ymkuyquO-pn2-HNd3xLd22D76@localhost>...
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 18:26:54 UTC, cmbass_us@yahoo.com (Curtis Bass) wrote:

"Sten Solberg" <stens@powertech.no> wrote in message news:<4RR8ymkuyquO-pn2-dcj3bdSWzQ50@localhost>...
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 15:42:45 UTC, cmbass_us@yahoo.com (Curtis Bass) wrote:

Well, out of the box, OS/2 does lack local file system security (...)

When will you ever learn, Curtis? Out of the box, OS/2 does have some security
which, when applied, also secures the file system.

Perhaps, if we use an extremely abstract and superficial meaning of
"secures the file system". However, generally speaking, when one
speaks of "file system security", one is speaking of a mechanism built
into the file system which governs access to each file according to
user access-levels and permissions. FAT and HPFS have no such
mechanism, and I do not believe that JFS does either. Why would they?
After all, OS/2 is a _SINGLE_ _USER_ operating system, and that is
the point. Based on this understanding of what is truly _meant_ by
"file system security", my statement stands.

Well, on the - your - premise that OS/2 is a single user system, it seems rather
specious to knock it for lacking local file system security as per your
definition, which presupposes a multi-user setup.

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=163715e7.0406230742.43a6f4d1%40posting.google.com&output=gplain

MMI] I just can't wait until some of you comes here into COOA ranting
MMI] about NT's local security and OS/2's lack of it.

CB] Well, out of the box, OS/2 does lack local file system security
CB] and multi-user access, and the 3rd party add-on that provides it
CB] is a beta port of Linux code.

As you should clearly see, I acknowledged this "presupposition" going
out the gate.

So it would seem, but you only stated expressly that OS/2, out of the box, is a
single user system in your next posting. This is important, or somebody might
be led to believe that OS/2 does not *effectively* come with local file system
security out of the box.

Apparently, you either forgot that or simply ignored
it, only to subsequently try to accuse me of being "specious". Again,
as you should clearly see, such an accusation is totally unwarranted.

I ignored it because it is irrelevant. Specific local file system security is
obviously unnecessary on a single user system. Your statement, "Well, out of
the box, OS/2 does lack local file system security (...)", is therefore both
unfair and misleading without a qualification or two.

You are guilty of splitting my statement into two fragments,
criticizing the first fragment based on an erroneous (or, at the very
least, questionable) understanding of what "file system security"
means, and then, once you were corrected on that issue, subsequently
criticizing the first fragment for not taking the second fragment into
account, effectively pretending that the second fragment didn't exist,
or only existed "subsequently". This is clearly indicated in how you
quoted me:

"Well, out of the box, OS/2 does lack local file
system security (...)"

I can almost come to the conclusion that you are more interested in
trying to score point than resolve issues.

The only issue here is that you forgot to say that OS/2 out of the box does not
need any specific local file system security, since its default security serves
as such, too, on a single user system. It is not that you are wrong, word by
word, but that your statement made it seem as if OS/2 out of the box was lacking
something, i.e. "local file system security". Well, we now know - after a
prodding from me - that OS/2 is a single user system out of the box and is
therefore not lacking specific local file system security any more than a fish
lacks a bicycle.

I agree with your definition of local file system security as such, but
the point is that OS/2, being a single user system, does not need this
specific type of security:

You have essentially restated what I have already said. My position
is that OS/2 is less secure by virtue of its being a single-user
system.

You could be right about that, and OS/2's security could probably have been a
lot better out of the box, but then we are talking degrees.

it is sufficient to just block access to the system as a whole. Who would complain?
Surely not the single user with the password.

"It is sufficient to just block access to the system as a whole"
applies to all OSes, regardless of whether they are multi- or
single-user. The point is that having multi-user access simply
provides another level of security that OS/2, being single-user,
lacks. Does this simple statement of fact qualify as "knocking" OS/2?

Yes, given your premise that OS/2 _is a single user OS. It doesn't matter if
you can prove that multi-user access security is better when OS/2 does not
belong in the multi-user category to begin with.

We have been over this
before, so why do you persist in short-changing OS/2?

Since when is presenting facts "sort-changing OS/2"?

Your facts were misleading, and more so by your own, subsequent, premise.

On the contrary, you should check your own "facts" -- my "premise" was
_anything_but_ "subsequent", as I have clearly shown.

I disagree. What you have shown is merely that the reader could theoretically
deduce "single user" and its implications by happening to imagine the correct
opposite of your meaning of "multi-user". Not clear at all.

And how can
facts, if truthful and accurate, be "misleading"?

I have replied to this above.

If anything is
"misleading", I would say it's your fast'n'loose interpretation of
"secures the file system".

Doesn't take much interpretation: if nobody can get at it, it's secure. If you
want to discuss quality, that is another matter altogether.

Bottom Line: My statements were not in error, but your subsequent
criticisms of said statements were.

Well, I have not said that your statements were wrong, or wilfully misleading,
but I think they were objectively misleading. It is important to understand
that OS/2 is not lacking multi-user security, and that it does effectively
secure the local file system. How well or efficiently OS/2 does this out of the
box is another discussion...

--
Best regards
Sten Solberg

.... Also sprach Zarathustra: "Have a Good Day!"

Curtis Bass · Jun 27, 2004

"Sten Solberg" <stens@powertech.no> wrote in message news:<4RR8ymkuyquO-pn2-45mQ8FHG7TZW@localhost>...

On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 17:53:11 UTC, cmbass_us@yahoo.com (Curtis Bass) wrote:

"Sten Solberg" <stens@powertech.no> wrote in message news:<4RR8ymkuyquO-pn2-HNd3xLd22D76@localhost>...
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 18:26:54 UTC, cmbass_us@yahoo.com (Curtis Bass) wrote:

"Sten Solberg" <stens@powertech.no> wrote in message news:<4RR8ymkuyquO-pn2-dcj3bdSWzQ50@localhost>...
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 15:42:45 UTC, cmbass_us@yahoo.com (Curtis Bass) wrote:

Well, out of the box, OS/2 does lack local file system security (...)

When will you ever learn, Curtis? Out of the box, OS/2 does have some security
which, when applied, also secures the file system.

Perhaps, if we use an extremely abstract and superficial meaning of
"secures the file system". However, generally speaking, when one
speaks of "file system security", one is speaking of a mechanism built
into the file system which governs access to each file according to
user access-levels and permissions. FAT and HPFS have no such
mechanism, and I do not believe that JFS does either. Why would they?
After all, OS/2 is a _SINGLE_ _USER_ operating system, and that is
the point. Based on this understanding of what is truly _meant_ by
"file system security", my statement stands.

Well, on the - your - premise that OS/2 is a single user system, it seems rather
specious to knock it for lacking local file system security as per your
definition, which presupposes a multi-user setup.

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=163715e7.0406230742.43a6f4d1%40posting.google.com&output=gplain

MMI] I just can't wait until some of you comes here into COOA ranting
MMI] about NT's local security and OS/2's lack of it.

CB] Well, out of the box, OS/2 does lack local file system security
CB] and multi-user access, and the 3rd party add-on that provides it
CB] is a beta port of Linux code.

As you should clearly see, I acknowledged this "presupposition" going
out the gate.

So it would seem

"So it is", is what you mean, Sten.

but you only stated expressly that OS/2, out of the box, is a
single user system in your next posting.

Irrelevant. By stating, going out the gate, that OS/2 lacks
multi-user access, that _is_ _effectively_ saying that OS/2 is
single-user.

This is important, or somebody might
be led to believe that OS/2 does not *effectively* come with local file system
security out of the box.

OS/2 _doesn't_ come with local file system security out of the box,
"effectively" or otherwise, unless we choose to play games with what
is meant by "local file system security" as you are attempting to do.

Apparently, you either forgot that or simply ignored
it, only to subsequently try to accuse me of being "specious". Again,
as you should clearly see, such an accusation is totally unwarranted.

I ignored it because it is irrelevant.

It is _not_ irrelevant, unless we choose to play games with what is
meant by "local file system security" as you are attempting to do.

Specific local file system security is
obviously unnecessary on a single user system. Your statement, "Well, out of
the box, OS/2 does lack local file system security (...)", is therefore both
unfair and misleading without a qualification or two.

The "qualification" as you are calling it was present, but you snipped
it and replaced it with an ellipsis in parentheses. Talk about
"misleading".

You are guilty of splitting my statement into two fragments,
criticizing the first fragment based on an erroneous (or, at the very
least, questionable) understanding of what "file system security"
means, and then, once you were corrected on that issue, subsequently
criticizing the first fragment for not taking the second fragment into
account, effectively pretending that the second fragment didn't exist,
or only existed "subsequently". This is clearly indicated in how you
quoted me:

"Well, out of the box, OS/2 does lack local file
system security (...)"

I can almost come to the conclusion that you are more interested in
trying to score point than resolve issues.

The only issue here is that you forgot to say that OS/2 out of the box does not
need any specific local file system security, since its default security serves
as such, too, on a single user system.

I didn't "forget" anything, Sten. On the contrary, you are forgetting
the orginal discussion between MMI and myself. As it turns out, MMI
is the one who brought up multi-user access and file system security
in the first place. Not me.

It is not that you are wrong, word by
word, but that your statement made it seem as if OS/2 out of the box was lacking
something, i.e. "local file system security".

No. My statements made it seem that OS/2 lacked "file system
security" _AND_ "multi-user access". Which, out of the box, it does.

And try to grasp why I made these statements. MMI was claiming that
OS/2 "has support" for both of those things. The opposite of "have"
(as in "have support", which is simply a different conjugation of "has
support") is "lack". I was simply clarifying that MMI's claims didn't
hold for "out of the box" OS/2.

If you have a problem with my statement that OS/2 "lacks" something,
then take it up with MMI who is claiming that OS/2 "has" that
something in the first place.

Well, we now know - after a
prodding from me - that OS/2 is a single user system out of the box and is
therefore not lacking specific local file system security any more than a fish
lacks a bicycle.

You are giving yourself too much credit, which is ironic, considering
that you are the only one on record as having a problem with what I
stated, and why. Go back and look at the context of the discussion
between Martin (MMI) and myself:

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=163715e7.0406230742.43a6f4d1%40posting.google.com&output=gplain

MMI] It allows me now to say that OS/2 has a local multiuser and a
MMI] local security support (not HPFS386 related), because there is
MMI] a 3rd party product that does that. How do you like it?
MMI] Multiuser-OS/2-plus-local-security* (protecting files and
MMI] directories by UID/PSWD) according to your 'right' definition?
MMI]
MMI] I just can't wait until some of you comes here into COOA ranting
MMI] about NT's local security and OS/2's lack of it.

CB] Well, out of the box, OS/2 does lack local file system security
CB] and multi-user access, and the 3rd party add-on that provides it
CB] is a beta port of Linux code.

The context of that part of the discussion _was_ _local_ _file_
_system_ _security_ _AS_ _I_ _SUBSEQUENTLY_ _DEFINED_ _IT_ FOR_ _YOU_
!!

MMI knew what "local file system security" means, and he was boasting
about how OS/2 "has support" of it via a third party add on. I was
just clarifying that it _wasn't_ available out of the box. And you
are now jumping in and raising a worthless stink based on nothing more
than your own misunderstanding of the issues.

I agree with your definition of local file system security as such, but
the point is that OS/2, being a single user system, does not need this
specific type of security:

You have essentially restated what I have already said. My position
is that OS/2 is less secure by virtue of its being a single-user
system.

You could be right about that, and OS/2's security could probably have been a
lot better out of the box, but then we are talking degrees.

No, you are attempting to trivialize and misdirect.

it is sufficient to just block access to the system as a whole. Who would complain?
Surely not the single user with the password.

"It is sufficient to just block access to the system as a whole"
applies to all OSes, regardless of whether they are multi- or
single-user. The point is that having multi-user access simply
provides another level of security that OS/2, being single-user,
lacks. Does this simple statement of fact qualify as "knocking" OS/2?

Yes, given your premise that OS/2 _is a single user OS. It doesn't matter if
you can prove that multi-user access security is better when OS/2 does not
belong in the multi-user category to begin with.

But you are claiming that I am "knocking" OS/2 by stating that it is,
in fact, a single-user OS and therefore lacks a level of security that
a multi-user OS provides, and making this statement in the face of a
claim that OS/2 "has support" of this exact same thing, via a 3rd
party add on.

The point is that I'm not "knocking" so much as "clarifying".

We have been over this
before, so why do you persist in short-changing OS/2?

Since when is presenting facts "sort-changing OS/2"?

Your facts were misleading, and more so by your own, subsequent, premise.

On the contrary, you should check your own "facts" -- my "premise" was
_anything_but_ "subsequent", as I have clearly shown.

I disagree. What you have shown is merely that the reader could theoretically
deduce "single user" and its implications by happening to imagine the correct
opposite of your meaning of "multi-user". Not clear at all.

You're pulling a Johnson on us by projecting your own lack of clarity
onto the general population. It may not have been clear to you, but
you cannot claim that it wasn't clear in general. After all, you are
the only one on record as having a problem with understanding it . . .

And, like I keep saying, you OS/2 Advocates have a _gift_ for not
seeing that which _is_ clear, if it suits your agenda(s) to do so.

And how can
facts, if truthful and accurate, be "misleading"?

I have replied to this above.

No, you replied to a different question, namely, "Since when is
presenting facts 'sort-changing OS/2'?" This lead to your claim that
my "facts were misleading". Which, in turn, requires that you inform
us as to how _facts_ can be "misleading".

If anything is
"misleading", I would say it's your fast'n'loose interpretation of
"secures the file system".

Doesn't take much interpretation: if nobody can get at it, it's secure.

Perhaps, but this "interpretation" _is_ misleading, in light of the
presented facts and general context of the original discussion. That
it didn't "take much interpretation" is only an illustration of your
own misunderstanding of said facts and context.

If you want to discuss quality, that is another matter altogether.

Agreed.

Bottom Line: My statements were not in error, but your subsequent
criticisms of said statements were.

Well, I have not said that your statements were wrong, or wilfully misleading,
but I think they were objectively misleading.

The operative words, here, are "I think", and I doubt that we will, or
can, resolve this. You seem the type to see things the way you choose
to see them. Period. Regardless of your own misunderstanding.

It is important to understand
that OS/2 is not lacking multi-user security

Of course it is, Sten. How could a single-user system not lack that
which a multi-user system provides by virtue of being multi-user?

and that it does effectively
secure the local file system.

In this discussion, I didn't claim that OS/2 didn't "effectively
secure the local file system", as you insist on phrasing it. However,
the onus is now on you to prove, or at least substantiate, the claim
that OS/2 does "effectively secure the local file system". For
starters, who are you to define "effectively"? Just how effective is
"effectively"? If you are to toss out "lockup" again, I will again
state that it's too damned easy to circumvent to be taken seriously as
a "security feature".

Also, it would be most helpful if you could get it straight in your
own head that "effectively secure the local file system", even _IF_
it's a true statement, is not necessarily the same as "have local file
system security".

How well or efficiently OS/2 does this out of the
box is another discussion...

Agreed.

Curtis

David T. Johnson · Jun 27, 2004

Sten Solberg wrote:

On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 17:53:11 UTC, cmbass_us@yahoo.com (Curtis Bass) wrote:

"Sten Solberg" <stens@powertech.no> wrote in message news:<4RR8ymkuyquO-pn2-HNd3xLd22D76@localhost>...

On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 18:26:54 UTC, cmbass_us@yahoo.com (Curtis Bass) wrote:

"Sten Solberg" <stens@powertech.no> wrote in message news:<4RR8ymkuyquO-pn2-dcj3bdSWzQ50@localhost>...

On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 15:42:45 UTC, cmbass_us@yahoo.com (Curtis Bass) wrote:

Well, out of the box, OS/2 does lack local file system security (...)

When will you ever learn, Curtis? Out of the box, OS/2 does have some security
which, when applied, also secures the file system.

Perhaps, if we use an extremely abstract and superficial meaning of
"secures the file system". However, generally speaking, when one
speaks of "file system security", one is speaking of a mechanism built
into the file system which governs access to each file according to
user access-levels and permissions. FAT and HPFS have no such
mechanism, and I do not believe that JFS does either. Why would they?
After all, OS/2 is a _SINGLE_ _USER_ operating system, and that is
the point. Based on this understanding of what is truly _meant_ by
"file system security", my statement stands.

Well, on the - your - premise that OS/2 is a single user system, it seems rather
specious to knock it for lacking local file system security as per your
definition, which presupposes a multi-user setup.

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=163715e7.0406230742.43a6f4d1%40posting.google.com&output=gplain

MMI] I just can't wait until some of you comes here into COOA ranting
MMI] about NT's local security and OS/2's lack of it.

CB] Well, out of the box, OS/2 does lack local file system security
CB] and multi-user access, and the 3rd party add-on that provides it
CB] is a beta port of Linux code.

As you should clearly see, I acknowledged this "presupposition" going
out the gate.

So it would seem, but you only stated expressly that OS/2, out of the box, is a
single user system in your next posting. This is important, or somebody might
be led to believe that OS/2 does not *effectively* come with local file system
security out of the box.

Apparently, you either forgot that or simply ignored
it, only to subsequently try to accuse me of being "specious". Again,
as you should clearly see, such an accusation is totally unwarranted.

I ignored it because it is irrelevant. Specific local file system security is
obviously unnecessary on a single user system. Your statement, "Well, out of
the box, OS/2 does lack local file system security (...)", is therefore both
unfair and misleading without a qualification or two.

Curtis Bass and David McCoy love to talk about that allegedly great file
system security on Windows systems that are otherwise in a complete
security shambles. The average unpatched Windows installation cannot
even stay uncompromised long enough to connect to Windows update
according to a recent Slashdot discussion:

http://ask.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/06/21/0024208&mode=thread&tid=126&tid=172&tid=185&tid=190&tid=201

Idiot Windows users seem to worry way too much about that boogeyman who
is going to come into their bedroom, sit down at their keyboard, and
read all of their secret files but they don't worry nearly enough about
the guy secretly connecting to their computer over the internet and
using it to spam us.
--
Posted with OS/2 Warp 4.52
and IBM Web Browser v2.0.3

Curtis Bass · Jun 28, 2004

"David T. Johnson" <djohnson@isomedia.com> wrote in message news:<10dub24a0n1sfb@corp.supernews.com>...

-- snip--

Curtis Bass and David McCoy love to talk about that allegedly great file
system security on Windows systems that are otherwise in a complete
security shambles.

Well, for starters, the discussion was about _Linux_ file system
security, with Windows being mentioned only peripherally, but no,
Windows security is not a "complete shambles" as you claim. Windows
_can_ be made reasonably secure, and it's often the _default_
_install_ options that leave Windows vulnerable, but you OS/2
Advocates keep ignoring these annoying facts.

The average unpatched Windows installation cannot
even stay uncompromised long enough to connect to Windows update
according to a recent Slashdot discussion:

http://ask.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/06/21/0024208&mode=thread&tid=126&tid=172&tid=185&tid=190&tid=201

Johnson Intellectually Bankruptcy at its finest.

The article talked about _one_ _person_ having this problem, and
_NEVER_ claimed that the "average" installation would have this
problem. But Johnson takes it upon himself to extrapolate one extreme
data point to represent the "average" case. This kind of intellectual
dishonesty represents extremely clouded judgment and is basically
tantamount to lying through one's teeth.

Also, the author claimed that he had to have all firewalls turned off
in order for Windows Update to work ("per Microsoft's instructions"
was his claim). Well, I've been using Windows Update for years,
usually from behind a corporate firewall, and never encountered such
"instructions" from Microsoft, yet never had a problem. Perhaps this
is the source of the author's troubles, not having a firewall enabled.
Did he even _try_ to use Windows Update with a firewall enabled? Or
is he more interested in not solving the issue, but bad-mouthing MS
instead?

Idiot Windows users seem to worry way too much about that boogeyman who
is going to come into their bedroom, sit down at their keyboard, and
read all of their secret files but they don't worry nearly enough about
the guy secretly connecting to their computer over the internet and
using it to spam us.

Ignorant OS/2 Idiots seem unable to understand that _if_ someone
hacked into their system, through the 'net or otherwise, their entire
system would be compromised, unlike with a multi-user system, wherein
only the files accessible to the hacked account would be compromised.

Curtis

chrisv · Jun 28, 2004

tholen@antispam.ham wrote:

How ironic, coming from someone who isn't educated enough to know
that OS/2, out of the box, supports security and multiple processors.

How ironic, coming from tholen.

MMI · Jun 28, 2004

David H. McCoy wrote:

In article <163715e7.0406251026.2dcbfcac@posting.google.com>,
cmbass_us@yahoo.com says...

"Sten Solberg" <stens@powertech.no> wrote in message news:<4RR8ymkuyquO-pn2-dcj3bdSWzQ50@localhost>...

On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 15:42:45 UTC, cmbass_us@yahoo.com (Curtis Bass) wrote:

Well, out of the box, OS/2 does lack local file system security (...)

When will you ever learn, Curtis? Out of the box, OS/2 does have some security
which, when applied, also secures the file system.

Perhaps, if we use an extremely abstract and superficial meaning of
"secures the file system". However, generally speaking, when one
speaks of "file system security", one is speaking of a mechanism built
into the file system which governs access to each file according to
user access-levels and permissions. FAT and HPFS have no such
mechanism, and I do not believe that JFS does either. Why would they?
After all, OS/2 is a _SINGLE_ _USER_ operating system, and that is
the point. Based on this understanding of what is truly _meant_ by
"file system security", my statement stands.

We have been over this
before, so why do you persist in short-changing OS/2?

Since when is presenting facts "sort-changing OS/2"?

Curtis

Why even argue with him, Curtis? If he isn't educated enough to know
that OS/2, out of the box no more supports security than it does
multiple processors, he'll never understand.

Well, there are(WSeB) and were(OS/2 2.11 for SMP) OS/2 versions that
supported SMP out of the box. The argument about SMP and security is
mostly valid (for other version than WSeB or 2.11 SMP), though not 100%
valid.

Just my $.02

Cheers,
Martin

I wonder if that one company who wrote that OS/2 security add on is even
still in business?

I've dumped Linux and moved to Windows XP.

David Sutherland

Guest

Curtis Bass

Guest

Curtis Bass

Guest

Cola.E

Guest

Cola.E

Guest

Cola.E

Guest

Curtis Bass

Guest

Sten Solberg

Guest

Hugh O'Hare

Guest

David H. McCoy

Guest

David H. McCoy

Guest

Curtis Bass

Guest

Curtis Bass

Guest

Guest

Sten Solberg

Guest

Curtis Bass

Guest

David T. Johnson

Guest

Curtis Bass

Guest

chrisv

Guest

MMI

Guest

Log in

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor