Back to home page

DOS ain't dead

Forum index page

Log in | Register

Back to the forum
Board view  Mix view

Information on Steve Adelewitz? (Announce)

posted by Dennis(R), 04.04.2009, 18:20

> I use Gmail and Google Pages a lot, too. Yes, you can't send .ZIPs with
> .BAT or .EXE (which I think is dumb).

Not just .BAT or .EXE. I had it reject an archive full of HTML files. I gather the reasoning is that a user might click on the archive in mail, open it, then click on and execute an HTML file in the browser which might do Bad Things. Yet I believe they let Word and Excel files through, apparently assuming that the current version's warning about macro code will keep users from triggering a malicious macro.

They also won't accept any archive formats except Zip. I gather that's because their software can't peek inside the archive to see the contents. A case in point is RAR files. Public domain code to open and extract RAR files exists, and RAR's author reportedly offered to assist GMail's engineers in integrating it into their code but was turned down.

I love GMail, and use it as my primary email account, but the ban on executables in attachments is a major annoyance. I have to resort to my Yahoo account or my ISP account to send/receive them.

> Also, recently Firefox 3 stopped working for a while with Google Pages (!)

<blink> What time frame was that? It's been working fine for me, but then, I just started using it to create/maintain Google Pages.

> although IE7 (which I never use) worked fine. Finally they fixed that. I
> don't know if that's due to them> switching things over to Sites (whatever > that is) or what. Maybe it was> Firefox's fault, who knows. But it's okay
> now. But yeah, I guess they have glitches like anyone else.

They do, and I expect glitches. My big complaint is that if you have limits on things, they should be clearly documented. Tell me what you think is an executable you'll reject in email. Tell me what triggers your assumption I might be a bot and blocks access to my Google Pages.

If I know what not to do, I won't do it.

> > > So does this mean Eric still intends to update VDE?
> >
> > He makes minor changes once in a while. The most recent I recall was
> > Automatic Formatting (^AF) in VDE 1.95.
>
> Well, that was 1 1/2 years ago. I know, not that long, just with DOS these
> days you can never tell when some things are abandoned or not. ;-)

There might be another update soon. A user just complained that he still uses 1.93a because 1.94 broke a macro and it never terminates. Eric said "Wow! I wish you had told me about this before." 1.94 made a change that required a CR terminating the last line of a file, and that broke a search/replace function the user was using. Eric had never tried to do that particular operation, and wasn't aware his change would break things. He's looking into a fix.

> > He made the DOS Freeware part of the site as portable as possible, and
> > provided Zips of the HTML code and images used for folks who wanted to
> > reproduce it locally. I sent them to a contact who hosts another site
> > I help out with to see if he wants to try to put them up and restore at
> > least that portion of ShortStop. The Mostly VDE and Mostly Pegasus
> > Mail portions will take a bit more doing.
> >
> > I'm digging around in the Waybak machine for a site snapshot that might
> > become a base for an attempt to resurrect it. It was a labor of love on
> > Steve's part and a valuable resource to the community. To honor his
> > memory, I'm doing what I can to preserve it.
> >
> > We'll see.
>
> BTW, beware that WayBack truncates files by one byte, which is annoying.

I've successfully recovered some no longer available files from Waybak. I wonder if this is a recent change?

> You're on texteditors.org , right?

I'm all over it. :-D

> Steve used the Freeware DOS pages as an excuse to test out a lot of text
> editors, esp. HTML support. I also have a passion for trying text editors
> (as my recent post on comp.os.msdos.djgpp shows).

I don't read that group. So many newsgroups. So little time...

> I have some comparison notes about various DOS editors that I've
> been making for a while now, might post it online fairly soon just for
> laughs.

I'd like to see it. Feel free to add it to TextEditors.org. It's the sort of thing the site was made for.

I collect editors, and have in excess of one hundred for various platforms.

One Windows, I use Notepad++ for most things. On Unix/Linux, I use vi/vim, though I use Emacs on occasion, and I'm becoming fond of Geany in X sessions under Linux.

The first real text editor I used was a third-party replacement for TSO/SPF on IBM mainframes back in the late 70's. It had some neat features, and when the shop switched to real TSO/SPF, I thought it was a step backward. 3270 block mode terminals have a completely different concept of full-screen editing than PC users are used to. :-P
______
Dennis

 

Complete thread:

Back to the forum
Board view  Mix view
15155 Postings in 1361 Threads, 250 registered users, 15 users online (0 registered, 15 guests)
DOS ain't dead | Admin contact
RSS Feed
powered by my little forum