Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #160721 > unrolled thread

Computers anyone?

Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers

Contents

  Computers anyone? Bob Martin <bob.martin@excite.com> - 2016-03-09 08:22 +0000
    Re: Computers anyone? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 19:25 +1100
    Re: Computers anyone? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-09 13:41 +0000
      Re: Computers anyone? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-09 06:48 -0700
      Re: Computers anyone? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-03-09 14:00 +0000
        Re: Computers anyone? "Sam Crean" <sg55443@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 04:46 +1100
      Re: Computers anyone? "Sam Crean" <sg55443@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 04:40 +1100
      Re: Computers anyone? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-03-09 13:50 -0600
      Re: Computers anyone? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 17:32 -0500
        Re: Computers anyone? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-10 13:24 +0000
          Re: Computers anyone? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 08:56 -0500
          Re: Computers anyone? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-10 07:29 -0700
            Re: Computers anyone? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 20:19 -0500
            Re: Computers anyone? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-11 13:08 +0000
              Re: Computers anyone? "Sam Crean" <sg55443@gmail.com> - 2016-03-12 04:02 +1100
                Re: Computers anyone? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-12 13:34 +0000
                  Re: Computers anyone? "Sam Crean" <sg55443@gmail.com> - 2016-03-13 04:35 +1100
                  Re: Computers anyone? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-12 15:54 -0500
                  Re: Computers anyone? pechter@chuckie.(none) (William Pechter) - 2016-03-12 20:51 +0000
                    Re: Computers anyone? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-03-13 07:44 +0000
                      Re: Computers anyone? Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2016-04-11 17:00 -0400
                        Re: Computers anyone? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 19:07 -0400
            Re: Computers anyone? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-03-12 15:10 -0800
            Re: Computers anyone? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-12 18:03 -0800
              Re: Computers anyone? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-12 18:34 -0800
              Re: Computers anyone? "Sam Crean" <sg55443@gmail.com> - 2016-03-13 15:28 +1100
    Re: Computers anyone? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-03-09 14:08 +0000
    Re: Computers anyone? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-09 14:41 +0000
    Re: Computers anyone? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-09 07:27 -0800
      Re: Computers anyone? Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-03-09 13:44 -0600
        Re: Computers anyone? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-09 20:15 +0000
        Re: Computers anyone? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 17:38 -0500
          Re: Computers anyone? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-09 17:14 -0800
            Re: Computers anyone? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-09 17:35 -0800
              Re: Computers anyone? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 21:31 -0500
                Re: Computers anyone? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-09 20:25 -0800
                  Re: Computers anyone? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-10 01:55 -0700
                    Re: Computers anyone? mausg@mail.com - 2016-03-10 11:47 +0000
                      Re: Computers anyone? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 08:54 -0500
                      Re: Computers anyone? Alan Bowler <atbowler@thinkage.ca> - 2016-03-30 12:47 -0400
                    Re: Computers anyone? "Sam Crean" <sg55443@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 04:01 +1100
                  Re: Computers anyone? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-10 09:04 -0800
                  Re: Computers anyone? "Sam Crean" <sg55443@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 04:28 +1100
                  Re: Computers anyone? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-10 13:44 -0800
                  Re: Computers anyone? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-10 19:28 -0800
                    Re: Computers anyone? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 06:16 -0500
                      Re: Computers anyone? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-11 10:37 -0800
                        Re: Computers anyone? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-12 12:37 -0800
                          Re: Computers anyone? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-17 09:25 -0700
          Re: Computers anyone? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-03-09 21:35 -0600
            Re: Computers anyone? mausg@mail.com - 2016-03-10 11:52 +0000
              Re: Computers anyone? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 08:55 -0500
          Re: Computers anyone? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-10 13:53 +0000
            Re: Computers anyone? Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-03-10 14:21 -0600
              Re: Computers anyone? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-10 13:17 -0800
              Re: Computers anyone? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 20:29 -0500
            Re: Computers anyone? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 20:17 -0500
        Re: Computers anyone? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-09 16:42 -0800
          Re: Computers anyone? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 20:19 -0500
    Re: Computers anyone? Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2016-03-09 12:13 -0500
      Re: Computers anyone? "Sam Crean" <sg55443@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 04:58 +1100
        Re: Computers anyone? Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2016-03-10 06:37 -0500
    Re: Computers anyone? Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-03-09 13:39 -0600
      Re: Computers anyone? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-10 01:55 -0700
        Re: Computers anyone? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-03-10 09:43 -0600
        Re: Computers anyone? Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-03-10 14:06 -0600
          Re: Computers anyone? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-11 13:08 +0000
          Re: Computers anyone? mausg@mail.com - 2016-03-11 14:10 +0000
            Re: Computers anyone? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-03-11 16:21 +0000
            Re: Computers anyone? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-11 17:04 -0700
              Re: Computers anyone? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-03-12 18:04 +0000
                Re: Computers anyone? mausg@mail.com - 2016-03-12 19:32 +0000
                  Re: Computers anyone? Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2016-03-21 20:17 -0400
              Re: Computers anyone? mausg@mail.com - 2016-03-12 19:30 +0000
    Re: Computers anyone? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-09 12:14 -0800
    Re: Computers anyone? hankvc@blackhole.lostwells.org (Hank) - 2016-03-12 07:34 +0000
      Re: Computers anyone? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-12 07:30 -0700

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

#160721 — Computers anyone?

When did this become the US politics newsgroup?

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#160722

Bob Martin <bob.martin@excite.com> wrote 

> When did this become the US politics newsgroup?

Long before you ever showed up. 

And it still isnt THE US politics newsgroup.  

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#160726

Bob Martin wrote:
>
> When did this become the US politics newsgroup?

It's not purely US.  Whoever gets elected this
year, will be writing laws which have a LOT
to do with computing and delivery of computing
services.  Security is an extremely important
issue; there exist politicians, and their followers,
who don't care about security...national, computing,
or trade.

A completely different software product is produced if
security is a non-goal.

/BAH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#160729

jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
> Bob Martin wrote:
>> 
>> When did this become the US politics newsgroup?
> 
> It's not purely US.  Whoever gets elected this
> year, will be writing laws which have a LOT
> to do with computing and delivery of computing
> services.  Security is an extremely important
> issue; there exist politicians, and their followers,
> who don't care about security...national, computing,
> or trade.
> 
> A completely different software product is produced if
> security is a non-goal.

windows.

-- 
Pete

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#160730

On 2016-03-09, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
> Bob Martin wrote:
>>
>> When did this become the US politics newsgroup?
>
> It's not purely US.  Whoever gets elected this
> year, will be writing laws which have a LOT
> to do with computing and delivery of computing
> services.  Security is an extremely important
> issue; there exist politicians, and their followers,
> who don't care about security...national, computing,
> or trade.
>
> A completely different software product is produced if
> security is a non-goal.

IME, security is *never* a goal, at least when developing applications.

I'm hoping things will change.


-- 
Today is Pungenday, the 68th day of Chaos in the YOLD 3182
                  I don't have an attitude problem.
    If you have a problem with my attitude, that's your problem.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#160743

"Huge" <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote in message 
news:dkaoj1Fmgl9U1@mid.individual.net...
> On 2016-03-09, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>> Bob Martin wrote:
>>>
>>> When did this become the US politics newsgroup?
>>
>> It's not purely US.  Whoever gets elected this
>> year, will be writing laws which have a LOT
>> to do with computing and delivery of computing
>> services.  Security is an extremely important
>> issue; there exist politicians, and their followers,
>> who don't care about security...national, computing,
>> or trade.
>>
>> A completely different software product is produced if
>> security is a non-goal.
>
> IME, security is *never* a goal, at least when developing applications.

It clearly is with banking and other financial transaction apps.

> I'm hoping things will change.

They have already. Very decent security has always
been a goal with iOS and that has been achieved too. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#160740

"jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message 
news:PM00052D9DDC11CB06@aca4143c.ipt.aol.com...
> Bob Martin wrote:
>>
>> When did this become the US politics newsgroup?
>
> It's not purely US.  Whoever gets elected this year,
> will be writing laws which have a LOT to do with
> computing and delivery of computing services.

I doubt it. I can't see any of Trump, Clinton, Sanders etc
doing much of that.

> Security is an extremely important issue;

In the sense of avoiding stuff like 9/11, sure, but
the laws have already been written on that stuff
and aren't likely to be changed much unless its
Trump that gets elected and manages to convince
Congress to get very gung ho about moslems and
that isnt very likely at all unless we see another 9/11
and that is very unlikely indeed IMO.

> there exist politicians, and their followers, who don't
> care about security...national, computing, or trade.

There always has been and there isnt a lot in it between
those likely to be elected Prez or to Congress except with
the more rabid 'all foreigners out' mentality of Trump etc.

> A completely different software product is produced if
> security is a non-goal.

Irrelevant to what happens with politics. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#160749

"jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message 
news:PM00052D9DDC11CB06@aca4143c.ipt.aol.com...
> Bob Martin wrote:
>>
>> When did this become the US politics newsgroup?
>
> It's not purely US.  Whoever gets elected this
> year, will be writing laws which have a LOT
> to do with computing and delivery of computing
> services.  Security is an extremely important
> issue; there exist politicians, and their followers,
> who don't care about security...national, computing,
> or trade.
>
> A completely different software product is produced if
> security is a non-goal.
>

And because it is *not* acceptable to make "on-topic" posts to <a.f.c.>... 
:-)

-- 

numerist at aquaporin4 dot com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#160758

In article <PM00052D9DDC11CB06@aca4143c.ipt.aol.com>, See.above@aol.com 
says...
> 
> Bob Martin wrote:
> >
> > When did this become the US politics newsgroup?
> 
> It's not purely US.  Whoever gets elected this
> year, will be writing laws which have a LOT
> to do with computing and delivery of computing
> services.  Security is an extremely important
> issue; there exist politicians, and their followers,
> who don't care about security...national, computing,
> or trade.
> 
> A completely different software product is produced if
> security is a non-goal.

And an even more different one if non-security is a goal.
> 
> /BAH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#160788

J. Clarke wrote:
> In article <PM00052D9DDC11CB06@aca4143c.ipt.aol.com>, See.above@aol.com
> says...
>>
>> Bob Martin wrote:
>> >
>> > When did this become the US politics newsgroup?
>>
>> It's not purely US.  Whoever gets elected this
>> year, will be writing laws which have a LOT
>> to do with computing and delivery of computing
>> services.  Security is an extremely important
>> issue; there exist politicians, and their followers,
>> who don't care about security...national, computing,
>> or trade.
>>
>> A completely different software product is produced if
>> security is a non-goal.
>
> And an even more different one if non-security is a goal.

<grin>  True.  Do you know of one?  I can't recall any.

/BAH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#160794

In article <PM00052DB1A3C0C6D1@aca43c3e.ipt.aol.com>, See.above@aol.com 
says...
> 
> J. Clarke wrote:
> > In article <PM00052D9DDC11CB06@aca4143c.ipt.aol.com>, See.above@aol.com
> > says...
> >>
> >> Bob Martin wrote:
> >> >
> >> > When did this become the US politics newsgroup?
> >>
> >> It's not purely US.  Whoever gets elected this
> >> year, will be writing laws which have a LOT
> >> to do with computing and delivery of computing
> >> services.  Security is an extremely important
> >> issue; there exist politicians, and their followers,
> >> who don't care about security...national, computing,
> >> or trade.
> >>
> >> A completely different software product is produced if
> >> security is a non-goal.
> >
> > And an even more different one if non-security is a goal.
> 
> <grin>  True.  Do you know of one?  I can't recall any.
> 
> /BAH

Anything the NSA has blessed for commercial use, I suspectg.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#160798

jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
> J. Clarke wrote:
>> In article <PM00052D9DDC11CB06@aca4143c.ipt.aol.com>, See.above@aol.com
>> says...
>>> 
>>> Bob Martin wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> When did this become the US politics newsgroup?
>>> 
>>> It's not purely US.  Whoever gets elected this
>>> year, will be writing laws which have a LOT
>>> to do with computing and delivery of computing
>>> services.  Security is an extremely important
>>> issue; there exist politicians, and their followers,
>>> who don't care about security...national, computing,
>>> or trade.
>>> 
>>> A completely different software product is produced if
>>> security is a non-goal.
>> 
>> And an even more different one if non-security is a goal.
> 
> <grin>  True.  Do you know of one?  I can't recall any.

This would actually fit windows.  The idea of attachments in email running
automatically was a _choice_ made in favor of "ease of use".  I think
Cutler tried to get better security in NT, but was overruled because it
added overhead.

> 
> /BAH
> 



-- 
Pete

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#160831

In article <1332480841.479309479.503247.peter_flass-
yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org>, peter_flass@yahoo.com says...
> 
> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
> > J. Clarke wrote:
> >> In article <PM00052D9DDC11CB06@aca4143c.ipt.aol.com>, See.above@aol.com
> >> says...
> >>> 
> >>> Bob Martin wrote:
> >>>> 
> >>>> When did this become the US politics newsgroup?
> >>> 
> >>> It's not purely US.  Whoever gets elected this
> >>> year, will be writing laws which have a LOT
> >>> to do with computing and delivery of computing
> >>> services.  Security is an extremely important
> >>> issue; there exist politicians, and their followers,
> >>> who don't care about security...national, computing,
> >>> or trade.
> >>> 
> >>> A completely different software product is produced if
> >>> security is a non-goal.
> >> 
> >> And an even more different one if non-security is a goal.
> > 
> > <grin>  True.  Do you know of one?  I can't recall any.
> 
> This would actually fit windows.  The idea of attachments in email running
> automatically was a _choice_ made in favor of "ease of use".  I think
> Cutler tried to get better security in NT, but was overruled because it
> added overhead.
> 
> > 
> > /BAH
> > 

Security in NT works just fine.  What makes it appear otherwise is that 
out of the box it has the settings wide open, in order to not break 
Windows 9x applcations.

I used to amaze people with my ability to make Vista run "incompatible" 
applications--the big change in Vista was that they tightened the 
security defaults and anybody who know how to adjust the security 
settings could fix quite a lot of such "compatibility" issues.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#160853

Peter Flass wrote:
> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>> In article <PM00052D9DDC11CB06@aca4143c.ipt.aol.com>, See.above@aol.com
>>> says...
>>>>
>>>> Bob Martin wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> When did this become the US politics newsgroup?
>>>>
>>>> It's not purely US.  Whoever gets elected this
>>>> year, will be writing laws which have a LOT
>>>> to do with computing and delivery of computing
>>>> services.  Security is an extremely important
>>>> issue; there exist politicians, and their followers,
>>>> who don't care about security...national, computing,
>>>> or trade.
>>>>
>>>> A completely different software product is produced if
>>>> security is a non-goal.
>>>
>>> And an even more different one if non-security is a goal.
>>
>> <grin>  True.  Do you know of one?  I can't recall any.
>
> This would actually fit windows.  The idea of attachments in email running
> automatically was a _choice_ made in favor of "ease of use".  I think
> Cutler tried to get better security in NT, but was overruled because it
> added overhead.

He was also trying to keep the monitor divorced from the app called
Windows.  That's the biggest loss.

/BAH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#160862

"jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message 
news:PM00052DC565229033@aca416bb.ipt.aol.com...
> Peter Flass wrote:
>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>>> In article <PM00052D9DDC11CB06@aca4143c.ipt.aol.com>, See.above@aol.com
>>>> says...
>>>>>
>>>>> Bob Martin wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When did this become the US politics newsgroup?
>>>>>
>>>>> It's not purely US.  Whoever gets elected this
>>>>> year, will be writing laws which have a LOT
>>>>> to do with computing and delivery of computing
>>>>> services.  Security is an extremely important
>>>>> issue; there exist politicians, and their followers,
>>>>> who don't care about security...national, computing,
>>>>> or trade.
>>>>>
>>>>> A completely different software product is produced if
>>>>> security is a non-goal.
>>>>
>>>> And an even more different one if non-security is a goal.
>>>
>>> <grin>  True.  Do you know of one?  I can't recall any.
>>
>> This would actually fit windows.  The idea of attachments in email 
>> running
>> automatically was a _choice_ made in favor of "ease of use".  I think
>> Cutler tried to get better security in NT, but was overruled because it
>> added overhead.
>
> He was also trying to keep the monitor divorced from the app called 
> Windows.

Windows isn't an app. Initially it was certainly the GUI.
but eventually became what you call the monitor.

> That's the biggest loss.
 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#160892

Sam Crean wrote:
>
>
> "jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:PM00052DC565229033@aca416bb.ipt.aol.com...
>> Peter Flass wrote:
>>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>>>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>> In article <PM00052D9DDC11CB06@aca4143c.ipt.aol.com>, See.above@aol.com
>>>>> says...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bob Martin wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When did this become the US politics newsgroup?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's not purely US.  Whoever gets elected this
>>>>>> year, will be writing laws which have a LOT
>>>>>> to do with computing and delivery of computing
>>>>>> services.  Security is an extremely important
>>>>>> issue; there exist politicians, and their followers,
>>>>>> who don't care about security...national, computing,
>>>>>> or trade.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A completely different software product is produced if
>>>>>> security is a non-goal.
>>>>>
>>>>> And an even more different one if non-security is a goal.
>>>>
>>>> <grin>  True.  Do you know of one?  I can't recall any.
>>>
>>> This would actually fit windows.  The idea of attachments in email
>>> running
>>> automatically was a _choice_ made in favor of "ease of use".  I think
>>> Cutler tried to get better security in NT, but was overruled because it
>>> added overhead.
>>
>> He was also trying to keep the monitor divorced from the app called
>> Windows.
>
> Windows isn't an app. Initially it was certainly the GUI.
> but eventually became what you call the monitor.

Windows is still an app.

/BAH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#160900

"jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message 
news:PM00052DDA10CF4C76@aca411fa.ipt.aol.com...
> Sam Crean wrote:
>>
>>
>> "jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:PM00052DC565229033@aca416bb.ipt.aol.com...
>>> Peter Flass wrote:
>>>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>>> In article <PM00052D9DDC11CB06@aca4143c.ipt.aol.com>, 
>>>>>> See.above@aol.com
>>>>>> says...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bob Martin wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When did this become the US politics newsgroup?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's not purely US.  Whoever gets elected this
>>>>>>> year, will be writing laws which have a LOT
>>>>>>> to do with computing and delivery of computing
>>>>>>> services.  Security is an extremely important
>>>>>>> issue; there exist politicians, and their followers,
>>>>>>> who don't care about security...national, computing,
>>>>>>> or trade.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A completely different software product is produced if
>>>>>>> security is a non-goal.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And an even more different one if non-security is a goal.
>>>>>
>>>>> <grin>  True.  Do you know of one?  I can't recall any.
>>>>
>>>> This would actually fit windows.  The idea of attachments in email
>>>> running
>>>> automatically was a _choice_ made in favor of "ease of use".  I think
>>>> Cutler tried to get better security in NT, but was overruled because it
>>>> added overhead.
>>>
>>> He was also trying to keep the monitor divorced from the app called
>>> Windows.
>>
>> Windows isn't an app. Initially it was certainly the GUI.
>> but eventually became what you call the monitor.
>
> Windows is still an app.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that
you have never had a fucking clue about Win. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#160909

In article <PM00052DDA10CF4C76@aca411fa.ipt.aol.com>, See.above@aol.com 
says...
> 
> Sam Crean wrote:
> >
> >
> > "jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:PM00052DC565229033@aca416bb.ipt.aol.com...
> >> Peter Flass wrote:
> >>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
> >>>> J. Clarke wrote:
> >>>>> In article <PM00052D9DDC11CB06@aca4143c.ipt.aol.com>, See.above@aol.com
> >>>>> says...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Bob Martin wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> When did this become the US politics newsgroup?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> It's not purely US.  Whoever gets elected this
> >>>>>> year, will be writing laws which have a LOT
> >>>>>> to do with computing and delivery of computing
> >>>>>> services.  Security is an extremely important
> >>>>>> issue; there exist politicians, and their followers,
> >>>>>> who don't care about security...national, computing,
> >>>>>> or trade.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> A completely different software product is produced if
> >>>>>> security is a non-goal.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> And an even more different one if non-security is a goal.
> >>>>
> >>>> <grin>  True.  Do you know of one?  I can't recall any.
> >>>
> >>> This would actually fit windows.  The idea of attachments in email
> >>> running
> >>> automatically was a _choice_ made in favor of "ease of use".  I think
> >>> Cutler tried to get better security in NT, but was overruled because it
> >>> added overhead.
> >>
> >> He was also trying to keep the monitor divorced from the app called
> >> Windows.
> >
> > Windows isn't an app. Initially it was certainly the GUI.
> > but eventually became what you call the monitor.
> 
> Windows is still an app.
> 
> /BAH

Give it up.  It is 2016. An "app" is an applciation that is packaged to 
run on an Android, IOS, or Windows 10 device, it is no longer a generic 
abbreviation for "application".  We have experienced a linguistic shift, 
similar to the one in which a "cam" became a videographic device and not 
a part of a mechanical system.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#160910

In article <PM00052DDA10CF4C76@aca411fa.ipt.aol.com>,
jmfbahciv  <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>Sam Crean wrote:
>>
>>
>> "jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:PM00052DC565229033@aca416bb.ipt.aol.com...
>>> Peter Flass wrote:
>>>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>>> In article <PM00052D9DDC11CB06@aca4143c.ipt.aol.com>, See.above@aol.com
>>>>>> says...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bob Martin wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When did this become the US politics newsgroup?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's not purely US.  Whoever gets elected this
>>>>>>> year, will be writing laws which have a LOT
>>>>>>> to do with computing and delivery of computing
>>>>>>> services.  Security is an extremely important
>>>>>>> issue; there exist politicians, and their followers,
>>>>>>> who don't care about security...national, computing,
>>>>>>> or trade.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A completely different software product is produced if
>>>>>>> security is a non-goal.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And an even more different one if non-security is a goal.
>>>>>
>>>>> <grin>  True.  Do you know of one?  I can't recall any.
>>>>
>>>> This would actually fit windows.  The idea of attachments in email
>>>> running
>>>> automatically was a _choice_ made in favor of "ease of use".  I think
>>>> Cutler tried to get better security in NT, but was overruled because it
>>>> added overhead.
>>>
>>> He was also trying to keep the monitor divorced from the app called
>>> Windows.
>>
>> Windows isn't an app. Initially it was certainly the GUI.
>> but eventually became what you call the monitor.
>
>Windows is still an app.
>
>/BAH

Hasn't been true since Windows98 or that disaster WinME.

There's no longer the MS-DOS layer and the GUI layer anymore.

Probably easier to split the gui out of OS/x and get it to boot to 
a command line than to have Windows XP or newer stripped of the GUI and
all those million DLLs...

bill

-- 
-- 
Digital had it then.  Don't you wish you could buy it now!
pechter-at-gmail.com  http://xkcd.com/705/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#160924

On Sat, 12 Mar 2016 20:51:54 -0000 (UTC)
pechter@chuckie.(none) (William Pechter) wrote:

> Probably easier to split the gui out of OS/x and get it to boot to 
> a command line than to have Windows XP or newer stripped of the GUI and
> all those million DLLs...

	Much easier, OS/X without the GUI is called Darwin and is available
as open source.

-- 
Steve O'Hara-Smith                          |   Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN                                      | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins.                |    licences available see
You lose and Bill collects.                 |    http://www.sohara.org/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers

csiph-web