Uninstall Outhouse Excuse?

[Kevin Aylward]

Paul Burridge wrote:

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 10:57:47 +0100, "Kevin Aylward"
kevin@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:

Paul Burridge wrote:

which is all too easy when one has a lot of messages to get through
in a short space of time.

I don't see that as a valid excuse.

I see.
Just as an aside, do you find you frequently experience people trying
to punch you on the nose in pubs after you've had a few Guinnesses?

No.

I can just imagine it. You overhear two blokes talking.

But this is a public discussion NG and understood as such, two blokes
talking in a public place, do not constitue a public discussion.

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

 

[Paul Burridge]

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 13:04:43 +0100, "Kevin Aylward"
<kevin@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:

But this is a public discussion NG and understood as such, two blokes
talking in a public place, do not constitue a public discussion.

Indeed? And how do you come to that sweeping conclusion, precisely?
--

"I believe history will be kind to me, since I intend
to write it." - Winston Churchill

 

[Russell Shaw]

Paul Burridge wrote:

On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 07:47:31 +0100, "Kevin Aylward"
kevin@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:


I didn't pay much attention to what particular virus was being
addressed, just making a general comment that I am amazed that people
are so stupid, today, to open attachments without being absolutely sure
they arnt an issue.


AFAICS, you don't pay much attention to *anything* before shooting off
with your 2p worth.
*Of course* I know not to open attachments/messages from unknown
sources. When I returned from holiday I had 700 messages to deal with;
the vast majority of them the usual crap. I set about deleting them,
got into the rhythm of key presses for the first 200-300 but then lost
my concentration and pressed either the wrong key or something out of
sequence. *That* was the error that caused the rogue message to open
and execute.

The easiest way is to display the messages by size, select the first
one, then press shift-mouse on the last one to select them all. Then
press shift-delete. Works in mozilla, and probably outhouse too.

 

[Ross Matheson]

Jim Thompson <Jim-T@golana-will-get-you.com> wrote:

alt.binaries.schematics.electronic<jhirmv85383fbl34dkq1cmhel7lrcru27o@4ax.com>,

: [snip]
:
: The crashing continues... message says "Explorer has committed an
: illegal..."
:
: Is there a way to go back from IE6 to IE5?
:
: I have a directory that seems to contain all the necessities for
: installing IE5.5

You might try http://www.litepc.com , specifically
http://www.litepc.com/xplite.html (which also covers 2000)

There's a free preview.
I've just played with 98lite in the last few days on a new box build.
One oddity I noted was that after removing IE5 and upgrading Windows Media
Player from 7.1 to 9, out of curiousity, was that it wouldn't install, saying
it couldn't "check for updates" right at the start of the process.
I then installed IE6 (box is not even on the net) and the install went OK.
I haven't tried taking IE6 off yet, but they say it will take out IE5+.
It just makes it an optional component in the Windows Setup tab of
Add/Remove. One other thing I did was drill down into the Registry and change
the (from memory, box is off now) "1st use" URL, which is the call home one.
Unfortunately I forgot to reboot before I fired IE up, but I think it would
have worked. Certainly it hasn't tried to call home since, anyway;-)
Ross M.

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Paul Burridge wrote:

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 13:04:43 +0100, "Kevin Aylward"
kevin@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:

But this is a public discussion NG and understood as such, two blokes
talking in a public place, do not constitue a public discussion.

Indeed? And how do you come to that sweeping conclusion, precisely?

Pretty obvious. Its its just the way it is. People talking to each other
in the street are generally assumed to be having a private conversation.
Its a social convention. Its something one learns after the first time
one gets a clip round the ear, be off with you sonny boy, around the age
of 5 or so. In NG's, its generally assumed that anyone can butt in at
any time, its what a public NG is. Are you seriously suggesting that
these are not the real facts of the situations?

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

 

[Richard Crowley]

"Ross Matheson" wrote ...

: The crashing continues... message says "Explorer has committed an
: illegal..."
:
: Is there a way to go back from IE6 to IE5?

My office PC runs the corporate-standard configuration
(hardware and software) and they have dozens of folk
who engineer all this stuff for the ~60,000 computers
in the company. And yet, I have found it necessary in
the last few months to re-install IE every month or so
because SOMETHING is clobbering it, bit by bit.

 

[Paul Burridge]

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 15:44:55 +0100, "Kevin Aylward"
<kevin@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:

Pretty obvious. Its its just the way it is. People talking to each other
in the street are generally assumed to be having a private conversation.

Hang on a minute! Where did this "street" suddenly come from? We were
talking about two blokes in a public house! (hint: a public house is
where people congregate for social purposes, including meeting people
and conversing in a convivial fashion whilst quaffing a few pints of
ale.)

Its a social convention. Its something one learns after the first time
one gets a clip round the ear, be off with you sonny boy, around the age
of 5 or so. In NG's, its generally assumed that anyone can butt in at
any time, its what a public NG is. Are you seriously suggesting that
these are not the real facts of the situations?

No, no, no! Yet again you've got hold of the wrong end of the stick.
No one's trying to suggest that you haven't got a perfect right to
chip in your 2p worth in this medium, whether invited or not. My beef
is that you came to a conclusion - that I was "stupid" - based on your
incomplete knowledge of the facts at that time. You went off
'half-cocked' as they say (not for the first time, I notice).
--

"I believe history will be kind to me, since I intend
to write it." - Winston Churchill

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Paul Burridge wrote:

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 15:44:55 +0100, "Kevin Aylward"
kevin@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:

Pretty obvious. Its its just the way it is. People talking to each
other in the street are generally assumed to be having a private
conversation.

Hang on a minute! Where did this "street" suddenly come from? We were
talking about two blokes in a public house! (hint: a public house is
where people congregate for social purposes, including meeting people
and conversing in a convivial fashion whilst quaffing a few pints of
ale.)

No difference from the street example. People sitting together in a pub
are assumed to be having a private conversation. Its simple not socially
acceptable to butt in.

Its a social convention. Its something one learns after the first
time one gets a clip round the ear, be off with you sonny boy,
around the age of 5 or so. In NG's, its generally assumed that
anyone can butt in at any time, its what a public NG is. Are you
seriously suggesting that these are not the real facts of the
situations?

No, no, no! Yet again you've got hold of the wrong end of the stick.
No one's trying to suggest that you haven't got a perfect right to
chip in your 2p worth in this medium, whether invited or not. My beef
is that you came to a conclusion - that I was "stupid"

No I didnt.

- based on your
incomplete knowledge of the facts at that time. You went off
'half-cocked' as they say (not for the first time, I notice).

Not at all. Show me where I said "you are stupid" or words to the same
effect. I have already explained my "Yes minister" approach with a
reasonable amount of detail.

For example, I believe my statements were:

"...there is no excuse to succumb to an email based virus. Don't open
attachments. Its that simple."

These are simply statements of facts. Unfortunately, you have clearly
misinterpreted them.

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

 

[Paul Burridge]

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 23:35:57 +1000, Russell Shaw
<rjshaw@iprimus.com.au> wrote:

The easiest way is to display the messages by size, select the first
one, then press shift-mouse on the last one to select them all. Then
press shift-delete. Works in mozilla, and probably outhouse too.

I don't use Outhouse. I was - and still am - using Pegasus in
conjunction with Mailwasher. Unfortunately, Mailwasher's still got a
little way to go in development before it reaches is full potential;
hence the problem.

--

"I believe history will be kind to me, since I intend
to write it." - Winston Churchill

 

[Paul Burridge]

On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 07:27:13 +0100, "Kevin Aylward"
<kevin@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:

No difference from the street example. People sitting together in a pub
are assumed to be having a private conversation. Its simple not socially
acceptable to butt in.

Depends on their body language. Often such people are only too happy
for others to join in, as you must surely have observed - although not
at first hand, obviously. ;->

No, no, no! Yet again you've got hold of the wrong end of the stick.
No one's trying to suggest that you haven't got a perfect right to
chip in your 2p worth in this medium, whether invited or not. My beef
is that you came to a conclusion - that I was "stupid"

No I didnt.

- based on your
incomplete knowledge of the facts at that time. You went off
'half-cocked' as they say (not for the first time, I notice).

Not at all. Show me where I said "you are stupid" or words to the same
effect. I have already explained my "Yes minister" approach with a
reasonable amount of detail.

For example, I believe my statements were:

"...there is no excuse to succumb to an email based virus. Don't open
attachments. Its that simple."

These are simply statements of facts. Unfortunately, you have clearly
misinterpreted them.

Given your standard of English, I'm sure I'm not alone.
But you're in a double bind: you write ambiguously and you comprehend
the replies via a similar mental filter. Is this Asberger's-like
behaviour confined to your written English or does the same disability
maniffest itself in your oral conversations with others?
--

"I believe history will be kind to me, since I intend
to write it." - Winston Churchill

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Paul Burridge wrote:

On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 07:27:13 +0100, "Kevin Aylward"
kevin@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:

No difference from the street example. People sitting together in a
pub are assumed to be having a private conversation. Its simple not
socially acceptable to butt in.

Depends on their body language. Often such people are only too happy
for others to join in, as you must surely have observed - although not
at first hand, obviously. ;-

No, no, no! Yet again you've got hold of the wrong end of the stick.
No one's trying to suggest that you haven't got a perfect right to
chip in your 2p worth in this medium, whether invited or not. My
beef is that you came to a conclusion - that I was "stupid"

No I didnt.

- based on your
incomplete knowledge of the facts at that time. You went off
'half-cocked' as they say (not for the first time, I notice).

Not at all. Show me where I said "you are stupid" or words to the
same effect. I have already explained my "Yes minister" approach
with a reasonable amount of detail.

For example, I believe my statements were:

"...there is no excuse to succumb to an email based virus. Don't open
attachments. Its that simple."

These are simply statements of facts. Unfortunately, you have clearly
misinterpreted them.

Given your standard of English, I'm sure I'm not alone.

Exactly, just what is wrong with my English?

But you're in a double bind: you write ambiguously and you comprehend
the replies via a similar mental filter.

Not at all. Indeed, I fear its is the other way round. It is not my
failure that you misunderstand what was actually wrote. What I write is
usually quite clear. Unfortunately, many less significantly qualified,
might well make assumptions not contained in the original avowal.

Is this Asberger's-like
behaviour confined to your written English or does the same disability
maniffest itself in your oral conversations with others?

How the fuck should I know

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

 

[Paul Burridge]

On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 18:15:36 +0100, "Kevin Aylward"
<kevin@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:

How the fuck should I know

Well quite. We're all a bit less than adequate in trying to be
objective about ourselves.
Anyway, I may be off-air so to speak for a while now as I'm going to
have to wipe my HDs and start re-installing everything from scratch
again, thanks to the bastard to wrote the Blaster worm code. If you
never hear from me again, I just want you to know that I've found our
little arguments most enjoyable.
Bye for now at least... :-(
--

"I believe history will be kind to me, since I intend
to write it." - Winston Churchill

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Paul Burridge wrote:

On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 18:15:36 +0100, "Kevin Aylward"
kevin@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:

How the fuck should I know

Well quite. We're all a bit less than adequate in trying to be
objective about ourselves.
Anyway, I may be off-air so to speak for a while now as I'm going to
have to wipe my HDs and start re-installing everything from scratch
again, thanks to the bastard to wrote the Blaster worm code. If you
never hear from me again, I just want you to know that I've found our
little arguments most enjoyable.
Bye for now at least... :-(

Well, why haven't you sent the fiver then.

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

 

[Andre]

Paul Burridge <pb@osiris1.notthisbit.co.uk> wrote in message news:<qch3nvon78esdm2t0cdn98bi2tcutlv27a@4ax.com>...

On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 20:18:55 -0700, qrk <mark@reson.DELETE.ME.com
wrote:

BTW, MSBlast shouldn't have affected any of your OS files. If your
running XP, MSBlast is a bit harder to purge if you do it manually.

I'm running 2kPro., which is NT4, essentially. Norton AVG reported
that the Blaster *had* attacked three seperate System files and they
were all irreprable. They had to be deleted so now various bits of the
OS don't work. For some stupid reason, 'doze won't let me copy over
replacements from another HD so I'm stuck with the problem unless I do
a full re-install and AIUI, I can't do that without trashing all the
apps I have and their settings. :-( It's a pity these bastards can't
find something more useful to do with their spare time.

The swine(s) that wrote the Blaster worm should be Blasted alright,
with 50,000 volts @ 6 Amps, applied across the head. Repeat until
crispy.

;-)

-A

 

[Paul B]

On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 13:13:18 +0100, "Kevin Aylward"
<kevin@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:

Well, why haven't you sent the fiver then.

Because you haven't sent me the unlock key for SS yet.
;->

 

[Dr. Anton Squeegee]

In article <gbjv31-481.ln1@main.anatron.com.au>, rjshaw@iprimus.com.au
says...

They design to a market of morons. Over the years, they've forced all their
users to become a bunch of uniformly spec'd point/click/drool morons to be a
perfect fit for their mass-market crap. It's like this: buying windoze is like
buying yourself a soft-drink vending machine. That gives you the wonderful
privilege of paying for software to stock it. You even get the bonus privilege
of paying for virus-checkers and agreeing to be interrogated by the BSA. When
you need to upgrade an app, it only runs on xp. XP means a cascading upgrade.
http://newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=03/09/19/032238
XP gives you the wonderful privilege of M$ telling you if that HDD or mainboard
upgrade is "authorized". By clicking "I AGREE", you are consenting to be well
and truly f****d for all you're worth.

Don't hold back, now... Tell us how you really feel! ;-)

Although I would agree with some of what you've said (if a bit
less graphically), I've been using lots of different OS's for different
purposes (including Windows since ver. 3.1x). I've always been a big fan
of "Match the tool to the application," and that applies to OS's as
well.

As one example: I'm fully hosted for my Internet presence.
Translation: I run all my own servers; DNS, Web, FTP, mail, the works.
My ISP gives me six static addresses over a DSL pipe, and leaves me
alone to do my thing, which is exactly how I wanted it all along.

I'm proud to say that NONE of my 'net-connected servers are the
least bit dependent on Bill-ware. They're all, with the exception of the
FTP/News server, surplus Sun boxes running NetBSD/Sparc. The
aforementioned exception is a big Compaq ProLiant 6500 with a pair of
disk arrays, also running NetBSD/i386.

The reason for this is that I could NEVER trust a Windows box to
be a reliable and secure Internet-based server, even if it was behind a
military-grade firewall.

However, most of my workstations inside our LAN are Windows boxes.
I'm using a mix of NT 4.0 and 2000. I will not use X(tra)P(ain), because
it seems like too much of an effort by UncaBill to enforce MS's will on
what people can and cannot do with their systems. The hardware
registration/product activation thing you mention is a perfect example.

So far, I've found that, with a bit of digging into the registry,
and other options to turn off things like 'Automatic Update,' W2000 with
SP3 has been the most stable Windows yet. The only BSOD's I've gotten
have been my own silly fault when I changed something I shouldn't have.

So, why Windows at all? Well, for one thing, I use a lot of EDA
software (schematic capture, simulation, etc.) that depends on it. I'd
have a lot of trouble doing design work otherwise. Sure, I'd like to be
able to use a FreeBSD or similar *nix-based workstation full time, but
I've got applications that would be difficult or really expensive to
duplicate on the BSD side.

Like I said: Match the tool to the application. The tool, in this
context, is the OS. Now, if you'll all excuse me, I'm going to go
hunting for a good book on Windows 2000 registry tweaking. ;-)


--
Dr. Anton Squeegee, Director, Dutch Surrealist Plumbing Institute
(Known to some as Bruce Lane, KC7GR)
kyrrin a/t bluefeathertech d-o=t c&o&m
"Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati" (Red Green)

 

[Russell Shaw]

Dr. Anton Squeegee wrote:

In article <gbjv31-481.ln1@main.anatron.com.au>, rjshaw@iprimus.com.au
says...
....

I'm proud to say that NONE of my 'net-connected servers are the
least bit dependent on Bill-ware. They're all, with the exception of the
FTP/News server, surplus Sun boxes running NetBSD/Sparc. The
aforementioned exception is a big Compaq ProLiant 6500 with a pair of
disk arrays, also running NetBSD/i386.

The reason for this is that I could NEVER trust a Windows box to
be a reliable and secure Internet-based server, even if it was behind a
military-grade firewall.

However, most of my workstations inside our LAN are Windows boxes.
I'm using a mix of NT 4.0 and 2000. I will not use X(tra)P(ain), because
it seems like too much of an effort by UncaBill to enforce MS's will on
what people can and cannot do with their systems. The hardware
registration/product activation thing you mention is a perfect example.

So far, I've found that, with a bit of digging into the registry,
and other options to turn off things like 'Automatic Update,' W2000 with
SP3 has been the most stable Windows yet. The only BSOD's I've gotten
have been my own silly fault when I changed something I shouldn't have.

So, why Windows at all? Well, for one thing, I use a lot of EDA
software (schematic capture, simulation, etc.) that depends on it. I'd
have a lot of trouble doing design work otherwise. Sure, I'd like to be
able to use a FreeBSD or similar *nix-based workstation full time, but
I've got applications that would be difficult or really expensive to
duplicate on the BSD side.

Like I said: Match the tool to the application. The tool, in this
context, is the OS. Now, if you'll all excuse me, I'm going to go
hunting for a good book on Windows 2000 registry tweaking. ;-)

Win2k+SP2 was my last windoze setup. SP3 did something really bad so
i had to uninstall it.

Linux is definitely for the complete non-tinkerer, or the all-nighter-tinkerer,
so windoze still fills the middle ground of a novice being able to configure
the system. The reason is that for the non-tinkerer, you can install a
preconfigured distro and it's mostly ok. If it has some things you don't
like and want to fix (such as numeric keypad not working as arrow keys etc),
it can mean *many* hours of finding and reading howtos and experimenting.

The cad side is also lacking in linux. Wine could be used for windoze apps,
and win95/98 apps are easy to setup and run in win4lin. The variety of
programming languages and libraries on linux is very useful for science/
engineering purposes.

 

[Fred Abse]

On Sun, 05 Oct 2003 11:57:41 +1000, Russell Shaw wrote:

win95/98 apps are easy to setup and run in win4lin.

A quick look at the win4lin site seems to suggest you need a precompiled
special kernel to run win4lin. That really goes against the open-source
concept of Linux. Having spent some time building kernels with the drivers
that I want, that work the way I want, rather than the way distros think
they should, installing win4lin here would probably break other bits of
the system.

I'd also be interested to know whether the proprietary kernels open any
holes to allow Windoze viruses in. At least Wine doesn't do that, AFAIK.


--
Then there's duct tape ...
(Garrison Keillor)
nofr@sbhevre.pbzchyvax.pb.hx

 

[Russell Shaw]

Fred Abse wrote:

On Sun, 05 Oct 2003 11:57:41 +1000, Russell Shaw wrote:

win95/98 apps are easy to setup and run in win4lin.

A quick look at the win4lin site seems to suggest you need a precompiled
special kernel to run win4lin. That really goes against the open-source
concept of Linux. Having spent some time building kernels with the drivers
that I want, that work the way I want, rather than the way distros think
they should, installing win4lin here would probably break other bits of
the system.

I'd also be interested to know whether the proprietary kernels open any
holes to allow Windoze viruses in. At least Wine doesn't do that, AFAIK.

You can use a pre-compiled kernel, or apply the two patches yourself to
your own kernel. The effects don't impact anything else or affect stability.

This is all you need to do:

cd linux-2.4.20 # top of kernel tree
patch -p1 < mki-adapter.patch
cd ..
patch -p0 < Kernel-Win4Lin3-2.4.20.patch

cd linux-2.4.20
make menuconfig

Set the option: Windows Applications support ---> [*] Include NeTraverse Win4Lin Support

Build and install the kernel and modules.


When rebooting, the kernel says it's running the mki-adapter and win4lin, iirc.

 

[Fred Abse]

On Mon, 06 Oct 2003 15:12:06 +1000, Russell Shaw wrote:

You can use a pre-compiled kernel, or apply the two patches yourself to
your own kernel. The effects don't impact anything else or affect
stability.

Ahh...... I hadn't seen the bit about patches, that sounds better.

--
Then there's duct tape ...
(Garrison Keillor)
nofr@sbhevre.pbzchyvax.pb.hx