Subj : NEW IN OS/2 IS IN THE READ* FILES
To   : Scott Little
From : Jim Rysyk
Date : Fri Jun 23 2000 06:37 am

 > how do you figure? Win9x brought relative stability, a comprehensive 
 > API, preemptive multitasking and 32bit-ness to the party. NT used to 
 > be OS/2 so if it's a fixpak on Windows 286, so is OS/2.


How do you figure that?



 > 
 >JR> except you have to pay for it, and listen to excuses, the rest of the
 >JR> bugs will get fixed in the next or subsequent fixes or updates.
 > 
 > and OS/2 doesn't have bugs?
 > 
 >JR> of LAN security bugs of MS OS under a Novell LAN were reported
 >JR> directly to MS or their representatives by me in the 80's.  Some or
 >JR> many of those same bugs were still in NT4 client, and Server 10 years
 >JR> later.
 > 
 > which bugs are these specifically?


Well, have you received a few e-Mails latley?  Have you noticed the talk of 
worms and e-Mail problems and Microsoft OS latley?  


Yes, the same bugs I was refering to, was noticed by a few others.. Then 
without me mentioning how or where they were or could affect Windows, someone 
took it upon themselfs to send out a few e-Mails.   Ya, those bugs, and more 
not yet mentioned on the various news media these last two months.

Now, Bill gates states he wants to take his new vision of holes, broken 
windows, back doors to other platformes, and allow the spread of worms, and 
viruses a speedier muti platform capabiltiy.  Then charge, charge, charge for 
using his consept.


 >JR> If MS and others have known about some or many of these bugs
 >JR> introduced to networked systems security introduced in MS-DOS 3.2,
 > 
 > MS-DOS doesn't have any network capability, any bugs relating to 
 > networking on MS-DOS are because of the client software, not the OS.
 > 
 

Ya, ya ya.  If you say so.  I know Microsoft says so.  

I know in other OS and networks, the server decided what the client can, and 
can not do.  The client has no say.



 > just like Internet Explorer is a part of the OS! OMG! Microsoft 
 > should have called on you during their court battle.


Their are many other browsers, and navigators that run on muti platformes and 
are not part of and were never part of any operating system.  Plus the are able 
to run on micky softs windoz.  Thus, billy ngates is full of it, and allways 
has been.  Bill Gates makes Al Capone look like a two bit small time would have 
been.



 > even when running on a specialised Java chip (picoJava i think?) it 
 > still requires an OS under it (JavaOS) as the JVM has no capability 
 > for interacting with the hardware.

I don't recall reading it needed an OS.  I recall reading, a lot of new 
hardware will not require an OS.   

Bill Gates solution or version is, that it requires a Bill Gates OS and 
solution.  Bill Gates will spenmd two Billion Dollars to prove it, promoting 
the Mellenium Edition, and to drum it into our thick sculls.

Oh, hey Bill, is that you?   Oh, I though so.


--- FLAME v2.0/b
 * Origin: SORRY, Live Y2K Rollover date system test under way @ (1:12/242)

.