Wed 2004-02-18 19:26, Bob Lawrence (3:712/610.12) wrote to Bob Lawrence:

 BL> I haven't gone mad, answering myself... I've just had an insight 
 BL> into the way M$ thinks!

Ah, then you have gone mad.

I remember using LOCK a long time ago for something or other but don't
remember why.  Probably trying to edit the directory tree with the hex
editor in an old version of Norton Disk Editor that didn't directly support
Win9x.

 BL>  It's really fascinating to see inside the mind of M$. They honestly
 BL> believe that it's possible to write an O/S that will let faulty
 BL> software run perfectly! They think that their users can't be trusted,
 BL> so they try to bring the whole thing down to an LCD... but *they're*
 BL> the LCD, and they always fuck up.

I think the situation has improved (in a sense) since then.  Keep in mind
that Win98 is bound to technology from 1994 (when development on Win95
began), so you're basically dealing with problems that were hastily solved
10 years ago, when backwards compatibility with DOS and Windows 3.x apps
still mattered.

 BL>  Not that Linux is much better. I had a look at emacs this afternoon,
 BL> and the rnthusiastic dickhead who wrote the manual says: "emacs is the
 BL> greatest program ever written!"

Well, don't blame Linux.  It's just the kernel.  And EMACS predates Linux.

That was probably GNU EMACS you used, which is more like an OS unto itself
apparently.  People use it as an e-mail reader and other odd stuff it was
never really designed to do, just because they can, or so it seems.

There are other editors that use EMACS keybindings, like JOE and
MicroEMACS.  I got hooked into using MicroEMACS by the sysop of a BBS I
used to use back in 1995.  Then I discovered Paul Edwards used it.  Then I
discovered much later that Linus Torvalds himself used to use it.  I'm not
sure what that says about me.  I mainly liked it cos there were DOS and
OS/2 versions, and it was free with source code.

If you want a simple (text mode) editor to use in Linux check out Nano.

 BL>  Jesus! It's WordStar, revisited. Utter crap! I cannot believe an
 BL> editor could be made so clumsy to use! Whoever wrote it (whichever
 BL> committee, no one man could be this stupid) has no idea of intuitive
 BL> comands! Do you believe you have to type TWO commands to exit? And
 BL> when it asks are you sure yes/no? you have to actually type Y-E-S. And
 BL> some of the commands are in capitals!  It's like they took WordStar,
 BL> and sat down to work out ways to make it even more clumsy (WorStar won
 BL> an Olympic Gold, for clumsy).

I think WordStar commands made a lot more sense back in the days when PC
keyboards had less keys.  No arrow keys, in particular.  The reasons for
EMACS keybindings are for similar reasons, but it wasn't designed on a PC.

Exiting MicroEMACS is just Ctrl+X+C.  Or better yet, hit F10.

 BL>  Bloody hell! LOCK convinced me that Win98 is a dead loss, but Linux
 BL> is even worse!

 BL>  I mean, if I wanted to insert a virus backdoor into Windows, you
 BL> would have to go a long way to beat LOCK. It's only a dozen bytes, and
 BL> then you OWN the drive. You can write anything you like on the hard
 BL> disc, it's yours exclusively for as long as it takes, and no one need
 BL> ever know what you wrote!    

On any modern Windows (2000/XP) PC you'd need Administrator priviledges to
do that, and you'll have to use Win32 API calls, not INT 26h.

Viruses that write directly to the HDD are a bit boring though.  Virus
writers would much rather try to keep a PC running so their virus can
actually propogate, then later provide a backdoor for blackhats/spammers to
use over the Internet.  The latest round of MyDoom has proven that the
virus writers don't even need to disguise the virus in any real way.  Some
people will just open ZIP files from unknown sources and blindingly run the
EXE file within.  Great for the virus writers, but depressing for anyone
who knows better.

-- mail{at}ozzmosis.com

--- timEd/FreeBSD 1.11.b1