What you all are saying is new to me. However, I do know that
in DOS session will show up 8.3 filenames and in Windows 9x
session will show up as long file names but still stored as 8.3.
Copying from ext2 partition to vfat (fat16) went without a hitch
only if you deselect preserve attributes or y
Oops...that's the "EA DATA.SF" file. Sorry.
On Thu, 8 Mar 2001, Michael Burger wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Mar 2001 17:27:21 -0600 (CST), Avi Aumick wrote:
>
> >> > NTFS may be derived from HPFS, but if you create a long filename like
> >> > in Unix, it is a true long file name. It can not be directly c
On Thu, 8 Mar 2001 17:27:21 -0600 (CST), Avi Aumick wrote:
>> > NTFS may be derived from HPFS, but if you create a long filename like
>> > in Unix, it is a true long file name. It can not be directly copied to a
>> > dos os. The name must be changed to an 8.3 type format. In NTFS, the long
>> > f
On Wed, 7 Mar 2001, Mike Burger wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Mar 2001, Avi Aumick wrote:
>
> > > If I'm not mistaken, NTFS also derives from OS/2's HPFS.
> > >
> > >
> > NTFS may be derived from HPFS, but if you create a long filename like
> > in Unix, it is a true long file name. It can not be directly co
On Wed, 7 Mar 2001, Avi Aumick wrote:
> > If I'm not mistaken, NTFS also derives from OS/2's HPFS.
> >
> >
> NTFS may be derived from HPFS, but if you create a long filename like
> in Unix, it is a true long file name. It can not be directly copied to a
> dos os. The name must be changed to an 8.
On Wed, 7 Mar 2001, Silviu Cojocaru wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Mar 2001, 04:47 - Mike Burger wrote:
>
> > Statux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> >
> > > > That's why M$ win stinks...
> > >
> > > Well.. it's DOS. Windows runs under DOS. Even NT found much
> > of its
> > > rooting in DOS. The emulation doe
On Wed, Mar 07, 2001 at 04:47:07AM -, Mike Burger wrote:
> Statux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > Well.. it's DOS. Windows runs under DOS.
Er--not really. As of Win9x, DOS is used as the initial program loader,
but by the time Windows is running, it's replaced the DOS with its
own kernel. A m
On Wed, 7 Mar 2001, Burke, Thomas G. wrote:
> That's a matter of opinion... Well, MS stinks, but from an electrical
> engineer's point of view, it's a whole lot easier to build hardware for a
> DOS box, as I can write software that talks directly to the drivers.
> Granted, I can't do that anymor
On Wed, 07 Mar 2001, you wrote:
> I did not get this from something I read. I have written device drivers in
> both. Their underlying subsystems are almost identical.
>
> Paul Anderson
>
Of course. They were both designed by teams led by Brian? Cutler who
went from Digital to M$.
Tony.
---
: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Linux and viruses
I read that fluff piece once, too.
On Wed, 7 Mar 2001, Paul Anderson wrote:
> Actually NT's Internals are almost identical to VMS.
>
> Paul Anderson
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMA
gt; Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 7:57 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Linux and viruses
>
>
> On Wed, 7 Mar 2001, 04:47 - Mike Burger wrote:
>
> > Statux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> >
> > > > That's why M$ win stinks...
> > >
You are not mistaken.
On Wed, 7 Mar 2001, Silviu Cojocaru wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Mar 2001, 04:47 - Mike Burger wrote:
>
> > Statux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> >
> > > > That's why M$ win stinks...
> > >
> > > Well.. it's DOS. Windows runs under DOS. Even NT found much
> > of its
> > > rooting in
#x27;s why I still
have a couple of DOS boxes around - for testing hardware.
> -Original Message-
> From: Adlar Kim [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2001 10:25 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Linux and viruses
>
> That's why
Actually NT's Internals are almost identical to VMS.
Paul Anderson
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Silviu Cojocaru
Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 7:57 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux and viruses
On Wed, 7 Mar 2001,
On Wed, 7 Mar 2001, 04:47 - Mike Burger wrote:
> Statux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > > That's why M$ win stinks...
> >
> > Well.. it's DOS. Windows runs under DOS. Even NT found much
> of its
> > rooting in DOS. The emulation doesn't help much either :)
>
> Actually, NT has its roots in OS
Title: RE: Linux and viruses
>Because the bulk of virii were either written for DOS, written to infect
>DOS/Windows executables, or are written in Microsoft's visual basic
>scripting language.
Don't you mean Microsoft Virus builder scripting language? :)
Wayne
Statux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > That's why M$ win stinks...
>
> Well.. it's DOS. Windows runs under DOS. Even NT found much
of its
> rooting in DOS. The emulation doesn't help much either :)
Actually, NT has its roots in OS/2. The very essence of the
kernel is the OS/2 kernel. At least
> That's why M$ win stinks...
Well.. it's DOS. Windows runs under DOS. Even NT found much of its
rooting in DOS. The emulation doesn't help much either :)
now adays.. computers have become (ironically) fake. Everything
(Windows-wise) seems to be emulated (meaning no native support, hence why
not
That's why M$ win stinks...
>From: Mike Burger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: RedHat List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: Linux and viruses
>Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 17:04:27 -0500 (EST)
>
>Because the bulk of virii were either w
On Mon, 5 Mar 2001, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi to all
> can anybody explain me, even in a few words, why is Linux so robust
> against viruses ?? Is there an intrinsic robustness ???
>
> I'm a Linux newbye, and I just heard of a "Ramen" virus or something
> similar, but nothing else
> if I
Because the bulk of virii were either written for DOS, written to infect
DOS/Windows executables, or are written in Microsoft's visual basic
scripting language.
Linux's memory model doesn't really allow for the DOS boot sector or
executable virii, because in most cases they require access to the
Hi to all
can anybody explain me, even in a few words, why is Linux so robust
against viruses ??
Is there an intrinsic robustness ???
I'm a Linux newbye, and I just heard of a "Ramen" virus or something
similar, but nothing else
if I think to the tons of Windows-viruses
Thank you
22 matches
Mail list logo
