Back to home page

DOS ain't dead

Forum index page

Log in | Register

Back to the forum
Board view  Mix view

text editors (in memory of Steve) (Announce)

posted by Rugxulo(R) Homepage, Usono, 04.04.2009, 20:30

> 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.

I can only assume the system (e.g. Gmail) is abused heavily for spam and viruses and such, esp. since it's freely available. Otherwise, I don't think Google would be foolish enough to be so overly paranoid.

> 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've sent .7z and .lzh and .tbz files before but not recently. I do remember that even .ZIPs inside .ZIPs with .EXEs, .COMs, or .BATs aren't accepted. Recently, somebody e-mailed me a .ZIP renamed to .PIZ to avoid the issue, so that's a good workaround if you need it (until they block that too, heh). ;-)

> 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.

The problem with Yahoo! is that, IIRC, attachments are limited to 10 MB (instead of 20 MB for Gmail). And I'm not sure if that's before or after the base64 encoding. Blah.

> > 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.

This was in the past month. But it works now, or at least the last two or three times I tried. As mentioned, this may be why:


> We are no longer accepting new sign-ups for Page Creator because
> we have shifted our focus to developing Google Sites.
...
> If you are currently a Page Creator user, you can continue to use
> Page Creator and your pages will automatically be transitioned to
> Google Sites later this year. We are committed to making this
> transition as smooth and easy as possible, and we will post more
> details as we get closer to the transition time.


> > 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.

Yeah, they've given me the bogus "please enter captcha" just for posting on Google Groups a few times, which is odd. Who knows, maybe somebody didn't like something I said (unlikely but possible).

> > 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.

TDE 5.2 is supposedly in beta also (although I haven't seen or tested it). There was actually a (very) tiny patch for 5.1v, but it only affected me since it was found via some stupid macro I wrote. (See TDE51V.TXT although that's not the macro, only how to recompile with the fix. All the macro does is overlay F4 [save+quit] to change the ASCII timestamp via regex s/r in the file if found.)

> > 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?

I don't know. Maybe it only affects older pages and files. They maybe fixed that bug a few years back so maybe your files aren't affected.

> > You're on texteditors.org , right?
>
> I'm all over it. :-D

I've read there various times over the past few years. I don't remember if I ever contributed anything (still haven't told you about e3's final version 2.7.1, see new homepage [down??] and binaries, which I had to manually build since no longer pre-included). For the record, my obsession is 99% with DOS-oriented stuff (in case it wasn't obvious). :-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...

Well, there's nothing majorly useful there in that one or two threads, esp. since I've mentioned GNU Emacs here (as you've noticed). The only other interesting thing was my weak attempt at a survey of users' favorite(s).

> > 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'll dig it up for you, but I'm not sure how it would fit into the setup of TextEditors. (It's mostly just a huge bunch of comments in a .BAT file.)

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

I obviously collect quiet a few myself. Maybe not quite that many, but enough to keep me busy. ;-)

> 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.

As you may know, TDE works on DOS (16-bit or 32-bit), Win32 console, and Linux w/ ncurses. Not that I ever use Linux much, and it never comes default so I built my own binary (which I always forget to use). Vim-tiny seems default on most GNU/Linux distros (although gNewSense includes GNU Emacs, thankfully).

> 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

That predates me a bit. :-)) But I imagine you mean something like Forth block editors (or not, who knows, EDT? heh).

 

Complete thread:

Back to the forum
Board view  Mix view
15157 Postings in 1361 Threads, 250 registered users, 27 users online (0 registered, 27 guests)
DOS ain't dead | Admin contact
RSS Feed
powered by my little forum