AOPA Flight Planner - Microsoft only?

[Andrew Gideon]

I tried to go to the AOPA Flight Planning web page today, and found that the
only option remaining is to download a Microsoft-only application. This
seems annoying.

Sure, I was able to go directly to the duat web site, and it was fine. But
I'm a member of AOPA, and they've eliminated a benefit from my use merely
because I prefer to use a more robust computing environment.

Especially given what's going on with viruses, worms, zombie machines, and
the like, requiring that AOPA members used one particular unsafe platform
to exercise an organization benefit seems foolish.

Has this issue been raised to AOPA and ignored? Is something in the works
for the rest of us? Anyone here know what's going on?

- Andrew

[Morgans]

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
gonline.com...
> I tried to go to the AOPA Flight Planning web page today, and found that
the
> only option remaining is to download a Microsoft-only application. This
> seems annoying.
>
> Has this issue been raised to AOPA and ignored? Is something in the works
> for the rest of us? Anyone here know what's going on?
>
> - Andrew
>
Who cares? You are a very small minority. (only half a grin, here)
--
Jim in NC


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.629 / Virus Database: 403 - Release Date: 3/17/2004

[Andrew Gideon]

Morgans wrote:

> Who cares? You are a very small minority. (only half a grin, here)

The question is: Does AOPA care (about the minority that doesn't spew
viruses at everyone {8^) ?

I am, after all, an AOPA member.

Seriously: I spend a nontrivial amount of effort selling people on
non-viral-farm solutions. Thanks to Apple's OSX, this is actually quite
feasible for the nontechnical today.

So what is AOPA saying about safe computing (and never mind monocultures) if
they ignore us?

- Andrew

[A Guy Called Tyketto]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Morgans > wrote:
>
> "Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
> gonline.com...
>> I tried to go to the AOPA Flight Planning web page today, and found that
> the
>> only option remaining is to download a Microsoft-only application. This
>> seems annoying.
>>
>> Has this issue been raised to AOPA and ignored? Is something in the works
>> for the rest of us? Anyone here know what's going on?
>>
>> - Andrew
>>
> Who cares? You are a very small minority. (only half a grin, here)

Minority or not, he has a very valid issue. We all aren't
forced to use an operating system from Micro$oft, so why should we be
forced to use a Micro$oft only-based application? There are those of us
who use linux, Macs, and otherwise. Making something that is 'only
viewed best with', or 'can only be used on XXX operating system' is
halving your user audience, and forcing them to spend money on products
they don't need, so they can conform to what the company (AOPA) wants.
If the AOPA wants to keep people around to use their product, they need
to make it available to all platforms. They are there for us, not us
there for them.

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.sbcglobal.net/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFAWk6jyBkZmuMZ8L8RAsN6AKDXaNlfW0bjIuYbFHco99 pJDRf8zgCgtnS+
OYypbWpmYZ4j7oeF119zVtQ=
=wvuP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Karl Treier]

Halving your audience, I think your stats are off a little. But I agree,
why not make the tool web based.

[Morgans]

"A Guy Called Tyketto

> If the AOPA wants to keep people around to use their product, they need
> to make it available to all platforms.

They created it FOR you to use, they don't WANT you to use it. Write a
version for them that will works for you, free of charge. It's all about
economics.

> They are there for us, not us there for them.

Oh?
--
Jim in NC



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.629 / Virus Database: 403 - Release Date: 3/17/2004

[Jim Fisher]

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
> I tried to go to the AOPA Flight Planning web page today, and found that
the
> only option remaining is to download a Microsoft-only application. This
> seems annoying.

Why should AOPA devote substantial time and resources to develop something
that much less than 3% (the percentage of non-MS systems in homes out there)
of their readership would ever use?

I can think of a kajillion other things I'd want my dime spent on other than
designing an app to please almost none of their sponsorship.

On the other hand, I'm sure there are some enterprising pilot/developers out
there who would absolutely jump at the chance to devote a thousand hours
designing an app for the few hundred people in your same shoes. Why, I'd
bet you pay them ten pr perhaps even fifteen bucks for such a killer app,
right?

Resistance is futile.

--
Jim Fisher
(who loves a Mac and Linux but can't function in reality without Windoze)

[Andrew Gideon]

Jim Fisher wrote:

> (who loves a Mac and Linux but can't function in reality without Windoze)

The reason you cannot is because companies/groups like AOPA waste time and
money developing platform specific products because the programmers don't
know any better. Enough time and money is wasted on Microsoft viruses that
anyone interested in economy should at least permit, if not encourage,
migration to more robust - or at least more diverse - platforms.

I do that. When Apple finally joined the UNIX world, it became a *lot*
easier.

But here we find an organization of which I'm a member working in precisely
the opposite direction. Annoying.

- Andrew

['Vejita' S. Cousin]

In article e.com>,
>The question is: Does AOPA care (about the minority that doesn't spew
>viruses at everyone {8^) ?
>
>I am, after all, an AOPA member.

Then if you haven't already you should contact AOPA and make your
concerns known. I think that the Cirrus software is windows only too.
Most programs are windows only. Sure pretty much every verison of windows
is unstable and the NT based ones have security holes in them, BUT 90%+ of
people use them.
AOPA might be able to get a mac verison (or Linux) but I would not
count on it. This might sound odd to you but for most people making a mac
verison just never occurs to them. Sure people own macs, but no one
except schools/university actually uses them right ? :)
So contact AOPA and ask, I'm sure if enough people contact them a mac
verison can be complied.

[Kristian G. Kvilekval]

On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 20:09:49 -0500, Andrew Gideon wrote:

> Morgans wrote:
>
>> Who cares? You are a very small minority. (only half a grin, here)


Actually there might be more people that you would think.
I was about to write to AOPA and complain about the same thing.
It usually makes no difference, but if they hear it enough it
will put these issues on their radar.


> The question is: Does AOPA care (about the minority that doesn't spew
> viruses at everyone {8^) ?
>
> I am, after all, an AOPA member.
>
> Seriously: I spend a nontrivial amount of effort selling people on
> non-viral-farm solutions. Thanks to Apple's OSX, this is actually quite
> feasible for the nontechnical today.
>
> So what is AOPA saying about safe computing (and never mind monocultures) if
> they ignore us?

Nobody ever got fired for buying into microsoft, but maybe they
should have been.


--
Kristian G. Kvilekval
office:(805)893-4276 http://www.cs.ucsb.edu/~kris

[rip]

Get real. Microsoft is targeted because Microsoft is the target. If 98%
of the world was running Unix, Linux, or some Apple OS, the hackers
would go after them. The problem is everyone jumping onto the latest OS,
making it easy to target "your prey".

Andrew Gideon wrote:

> Jim Fisher wrote:
>
>
>>(who loves a Mac and Linux but can't function in reality without Windoze)
>
>
> The reason you cannot is because companies/groups like AOPA waste time and
> money developing platform specific products because the programmers don't
> know any better. Enough time and money is wasted on Microsoft viruses that
> anyone interested in economy should at least permit, if not encourage,
> migration to more robust - or at least more diverse - platforms.
>
> I do that. When Apple finally joined the UNIX world, it became a *lot*
> easier.
>
> But here we find an organization of which I'm a member working in precisely
> the opposite direction. Annoying.
>
> - Andrew
>

[G.R. Patterson III]

A Guy Called Tyketto wrote:
>
> We all aren't
> forced to use an operating system from Micro$oft, so why should we be
> forced to use a Micro$oft only-based application?

Someone is forcing you to use their flight planner?

George Patterson
Battle, n; A method of untying with the teeth a political knot that would
not yield to the tongue.

[Wizard of Draws]

On 3/18/04 10:06 PM, in article , "Peter
Duniho" > wrote:
>
> They are saying that it's possible to care about safe computing without
> listening to a bunch of rabid fanatics such as yourself.
>
> Pete
>
>

Andrew isn't even close to a rabid Mac fanatic on the basis of what he's
posted here.
--
Jeff 'The Wizard of Draws' Bucchino
Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
www.wizardofdraws.com
www.cartoonclipart.com

[Andrew Gideon]

G.R. Patterson III wrote:

>
>
> A Guy Called Tyketto wrote:
>>
>> We all aren't
>> forced to use an operating system from Micro$oft, so why should we be
>> forced to use a Micro$oft only-based application?
>
> Someone is forcing you to use their flight planner?

No, but I'm not happy with an organization I support promoting a monoculture
(and a sickly one at that). That is not safe computing.

- Andrew

[Peter Duniho]

"Wizard of Draws" > wrote in message
news:BC7FD46C.66F2%jeffbREMOVE@REMOVEwizardofdraws .com...
> Andrew isn't even close to a rabid Mac fanatic on the basis of what he's
> posted here.

Of course he is. Anyone silly enough to claim that using a Mac is in and of
itself safe computing (or that using a Windows machine in and of itself is
not) is by definition a rabid Mac fanatic.

Of course, most Mac users are rabid Mac fanatics. It's the only way Apple
could have hoped to have survived under their business model.

[Blanche]

yes, it's been brought to AOPA's attention.

And ignored by AOPA. Not even the courtesy of an email from
them.

[Blanche]

Peter Duniho > wrote:
>"Wizard of Draws" > wrote in message
>> Andrew isn't even close to a rabid Mac fanatic on the basis of what he's
>> posted here.
>
>Of course he is. Anyone silly enough to claim that using a Mac is in and of
>itself safe computing (or that using a Windows machine in and of itself is
>not) is by definition a rabid Mac fanatic.
>
>Of course, most Mac users are rabid Mac fanatics. It's the only way Apple
>could have hoped to have survived under their business model.

Perhaps I missed something. Where did Andrew state he was a Mac
user?

Me? I only use Unix, so I'm even more left out.

[C J Campbell]

If the market was worth the development cost then they would do it. It is
all about money. No one gives a #*&^( about your opinion that one OS is
'better' than another.

Last I looked, AOPA was based in the United States, not some lunatic's idea
of a socialist paradise that requires equal effort be spent on all operating
systems, no matter how few people use each one.

[C J Campbell]

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
gonline.com...
>
> Especially given what's going on with viruses, worms, zombie machines, and
> the like, requiring that AOPA members used one particular unsafe platform
> to exercise an organization benefit seems foolish.
>

It is outrageous that the writers of these viruses, worms, zombie machines,
and the like are mostly ignoring your operating system. Their software
instead only targets the prevailing monoculture, treating you like you did
not exist. This is blatant discrimination against you, suggesting that you
are too unimportant to be worth their time. I suggest that we demand that
hackers and other criminals give all operating systems equal time, or we
double their sentences when they are caught.

[Peter Duniho]

"Blanche" > wrote in message
...
> Perhaps I missed something. Where did Andrew state he was a Mac
> user?

He's made a couple of comments implying that already. However, I'll grant
you...he could (also) be a rabid Linux fanatic. Same attitude, different
business model.

Don't get me wrong, I think MacOS and Linux are great options, and each has
lots to offer in their own way. It's just that when someone goes around
claiming that those options are inherently secure while Windows is
inherently not secure, it's obvious the hamster's not engaged upstairs.
This usually happens as a result of being a rabid fanatic (scares the
hamster).

CJ's posts sum up the issue nicely.

Pete

[Sylvain]

Andrew Gideon > wrote in message ne.com>...
> I tried to go to the AOPA Flight Planning web page today, and found that the
> only option remaining is to download a Microsoft-only application. This
> seems annoying.

indeed. I prefer to use a real computer myself, but there are some simple
solution: commercial solutions like I use myself (running AOPA Flight
Planning under either VMware or VirtualPC -- the former making it possible
to run it from Linux, among other things, the latter from Macintosh); or
another free solution: AOPA Flight Planning works just fine under Wine
(under linux);

just tried it a minute ago (I didn't explore the whole functionality under
Wine yet, but it looks promising); I also tried under knoppix (since I
have a very customized Linux setup, I wanted to be sure the thing would
work under a 'standard' set up easily reproducible by someone else); and
the thing fired up just as advertised.

info about knoppix can be found here (it is a very neat Debian based
distribution of Linux that boots from the CD, i.e., neat for those
who'd like to try what a real OS looks like without having to
install anything on their PC): http://www.knoppix.org/

and info about Wine can be found here:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/wine/ (note that Wine seem to work
also under MacOS though I haven't tried it myself);

oh, and to be complete, info about VMware can be found here:
http://www.vmware.com/ and VirtualPC here (Connectix having been bought
by Microsoft):
http://www.microsoft.com/mac/products/virtualpc/virtualpc.aspx?pid=virtualpc

hope it helps,

--Sylvain

[Jay Masino]

AOPA should have just left it as a Web application. I don't see why they
needed to make ANY platform-specific download. I'll just use
Aeroplanner on my Macs, Suns, Linux-boxes, and Windows PCs.

--- Jay



--

__!__
Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
http://www2.ari.net/jmasino ! ! !
http://www.oceancityairport.com
http://www.oc-adolfos.com

[Dylan Smith]

In article ne.com>, Andrew
Gideon wrote:
<snip>

The inevitable comments about how non-MS Windows users are in the
minority is going to now erupt, with the usual insensitive clods [0]
going on about how those who don't use an MS platform are in a minority
and don't matter (when it would be so easy to make it multi-platform -
say, by making it web-based).

Anyone who goes on about non Microsoft users being a minority, therefore
justifying not going to the extra effort (in this case, there would
probably be no extra effort had they started off with a multiplatform
system in the first place by, say, making it web based) are exceedingly
short sighted.

Why are they short sighted? Is Microsoft's monopoly going to collapse in
the next year or two? Well, probably not. MS will still have 90% of the
desktop probably in 5 years time. However, the desktop is going to get
less and less important for this kind of thing. Handheld devices are
going to get more and more important *especially for an activity that is
as inherently mobile as flying and the need to flight plan*.

The handheld world has seen what Microsoft did to the desktop world, and
are determined not to let it happen to them. Microsoft themselves are a
minority player in the mobile phone world. Symbian and J2ME are much
bigger, and the majority of mobile phones and devices of their ilk run
one or the other or both.
The prices of GPRS and EGRPS phones are dropping all the time.
Even on the few Windows-based handheld devices, they can't actually run
applications compiled for desktop Windows. The instruction set for the
CPU is different, and bloated desktop applications don't sit well on a
low powered handheld device (where web applications run fine, so long as
they aren't bloated out with needless Javascript and graphics)
With this kind of application, more and more people are going to want to
do it on their mobile phone/PDA especially for something that is
inherently mobile like travelling by plane! Travelling by light plane
especially is something we do 'travelling light'. I'd (and I'm sure many
others - certainly all my pilot friends over here) would rather carry a
capable cell phone to get our weather radar rather than a bulky laptop.
On my Nokia 6820 phone, I have web short cuts to METARS, TAFs, weather
radar, synoptic charts etc. and it's ideal for on the move (like GA,
there's compromises like the small screen). A flight planner on the web
would be excellent especially if it was designed such as not to exclude
mobile users. Making it a Windows desktop only application
excludes mobile users.

By making their flight planner Windows-only, they have excluded the vast
majority of mobile users. I predict that certainly in Britain, the
number of non-Wintel (E)GPRS phones will rival the number of desktop PCs
within the next couple of years. It'll probably happen in the US too -
for everyone going on about how basic cellphone service is in the US -
guess where I just bought a tri-band GPRS phone (there are plenty of
GSM/GPRS providers now in the US, T-Mobile is one, I think Cingular
might be GSM, BICBW).

And Jay Honeck, this means you, you'd do well to have a version of your
website that's accessable for mobile users :-) Because guess what -
people will want to search for a hotel on their cell phone sooner than
you think!

[0] Just kidding.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Kai Glaesner]

Andrew,

> Has this issue been raised to AOPA and ignored? Is something in the works
> for the rest of us? Anyone here know what's going on?

I think the reason for the windows-only Flight Planner is, that the just use
a scaled down version of Jeppesen FliteStar for rendering/showing the maps.

Regards

Kai

[Eric Rood]

Peter Duniho wrote:

> Don't get me wrong, I think MacOS and Linux are great options, and each has
> lots to offer in their own way. It's just that when someone goes around
> claiming that those options are inherently secure while Windows is
> inherently not secure, it's obvious the hamster's not engaged upstairs.

Windows is insecure enough that the US Army migrated to Apple software based
servers to improve security of it's network several year ago.

[Mark Astley]

The funny part is that we have one minority (pilots) bashing another
minority (users of a non-MS OS). I wonder if the minority still doesn't
matter when it's pilots?

mark

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
> In article ne.com>,
Andrew
> Gideon wrote:
> <snip>
>
> The inevitable comments about how non-MS Windows users are in the
> minority is going to now erupt, with the usual insensitive clods [0]
> going on about how those who don't use an MS platform are in a minority
> and don't matter (when it would be so easy to make it multi-platform -
> say, by making it web-based).
>
<snip>
>
> [0] Just kidding.
>
> --
> Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
> Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
> Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
> "Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Travis Marlatte]

Umm. It can't be all about the money - it's a free planner!

I'm not sure why AOPA needs to sponsor any kind of a planner. I presume that
the motiviation is to encourage pilots to get better briefings to reduce
accident rates. I just don't see that the new planner is going to pull in
that many additional pilots.

Personally, I wish that AOPA would work to improve the DUATS web interface
and to encourage improvements to Cirrus's client-driven planner - at someone
else's expense.

--
-------------------------------
Travis
"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> If the market was worth the development cost then they would do it. It is
> all about money. No one gives a #*&^( about your opinion that one OS is
> 'better' than another.
>
> Last I looked, AOPA was based in the United States, not some lunatic's
idea
> of a socialist paradise that requires equal effort be spent on all
operating
> systems, no matter how few people use each one.
>
>

[Travis Marlatte]

Aeroplanner does offer some interesting features that AOPA's planner does
not but it is just too slow and cumbersome to be really useful. But then,
why should AOPA be competing with the for-profit planners? Why is free,
advanced planning a plank for AOPA?

If I want to quickly check weather, going directly to the CS DUATS web site
and interpretting the text output is still the fastest. I'll use AOPA's free
planner to plan long cross-countries but even then, it is not a critical
piece of my planning.

AOPA - please use my money to keep airports open and ADs to a safe minimum.
--
-------------------------------
Travis
"Jay Masino" > wrote in message
...
>
> AOPA should have just left it as a Web application. I don't see why they
> needed to make ANY platform-specific download. I'll just use
> Aeroplanner on my Macs, Suns, Linux-boxes, and Windows PCs.
>
> --- Jay
>
>
>
> --
>
> __!__
> Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
> http://www2.ari.net/jmasino ! ! !
> http://www.oceancityairport.com
> http://www.oc-adolfos.com

[Dave Stadt]

"Travis Marlatte" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
> Umm. It can't be all about the money - it's a free planner!

Free to endusers that are AOPA members. Certainly you cannot believe there
were no development costs.

[Thomas Borchert]

Andrew,

> Has this issue been raised to AOPA and ignored?
>

Yes, IIRC. They mentioned upon introduction that this is a very costly
thing to start with and that they'd rather deliver the service "only"
to the 92 or so percent of AOPA members using Windows than not have it
at all.

Personally, I have to agree with both AOPA and Peter. The vast majority
of AOPA members would have to consider a Mac/Linux-or-whatever version
a colossal waste of their money. And the "security by minority" scheme
doesn't work.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Sylvain,

> I prefer to use a real computer myself, but there are some simple
> solution: commercial solutions like I use myself (running AOPA Flight
> Planning under either VMware or VirtualPC -- the former making it possible
> to run it from Linux, among other things, the latter from Macintosh); or
> another free solution: AOPA Flight Planning works just fine under Wine
> (under linux);
>

This made me fall of my seat with laughter: You claim to be using "a real
computer" and then go on to describe how to use the "real computer" to make
it behave like a "non-real computer"???? Jeeze...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[C J Campbell]

"Eric Rood" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Peter Duniho wrote:
>
> > Don't get me wrong, I think MacOS and Linux are great options, and each
has
> > lots to offer in their own way. It's just that when someone goes around
> > claiming that those options are inherently secure while Windows is
> > inherently not secure, it's obvious the hamster's not engaged upstairs.
>
> Windows is insecure enough that the US Army migrated to Apple software
based
> servers to improve security of it's network several year ago.
>

BWAAHAHA! What a colossal waste of money! That is like trying to improve
security by moving the hinges of a gate from one side to the other.

Yep. Mac OS -- endorsed by the United States Army. The same people who
brought you wasted billions on trying to find out if psychics could see what
the enemy is up to are now improving security by playing with toy
computers....

[Thomas Borchert]

Eric,

> Windows is insecure enough that the US Army migrated to Apple software based
> servers to improve security of it's network several year ago.
>

News to me. A source?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Tony Cox]

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
gonline.com...
>
> I tried to go to the AOPA Flight Planning web page today, and found that
the
> only option remaining is to download a Microsoft-only application. This
> seems annoying.
>

If you are using Linux or Solaris, have you tried running the
application with 'wine' (www.winehq.com)?

I've tried several Windows native applications on Linux and
had no problems, although I've not yet tried the flight planner.

('wine' is a free Windows API emulator that runs on a variety
of other OS)

[Dylan Smith]

In article >, C J Campbell wrote:
>> Windows is insecure enough that the US Army migrated to Apple software
> based
>> servers to improve security of it's network several year ago.
>
> BWAAHAHA! What a colossal waste of money! That is like trying to improve
> security by moving the hinges of a gate from one side to the other.

OK, several years ago: what did we have?
Windows was a DOS-extender then. A veneer over a single user, single
tasking operating system (Windows <= WinME, exclduding NT are DOS
extenders). Although MacOS <= 9 was also from the ground up single user,
it didn't have any of the inherent problems that WinME and below have
by their nature as DOS extenders.

The real problem with Windows isn't so much the features it has (or
lacks) - like any other OS, it has bugs, and like any other OS, stupid
people use it. Win2K3 Server + AD + WinXP on the workstation has some
very *good* security features. You can now do a much better job of
locking a Windows system down.

The problem with Windows is cultural. Windows comes from a single user,
single tasking culture - and many of its features have been added on
without regard for the fact they might be connected to a public network.
These cultural aspects are endemic from Microsoft themselves to the
people who use the OS. Unix-based OSes, on the other hand, come from a
culture of being plugged in to public networks from day one, and being
multi user, multi tasking from day one. RedHat learned many years ago
why you don't enable 1001 services by default in a fresh install (that's
why it got nicknamed RedHack in the 6.0 days). Debian always seemed to
have this particular bit of clue. On the other hand, if you buy a brand
new Windows package with all the latest updates, it STILL has the RPC
ports open by default, despite all the worms that have exploited holes
in it! This is Microsoft's fault. Finally they are fixing it in Windows
XP SP2. How long until a significant number of users are running SP2,
and have these vulnerable services open by default and no firewall by
default? Years, I wager. There's still a significant number of Win98/ME
machines still in use, and I bet there's a lot of unpatched XP systems
out there.

Then there's the software writer part of the Windows culture. Many
software companies are still writing software which won't run at all or
not properly unless you are running as administrator - meaning users are
forced to run insecurely if they want to run some software. But then
again, since when you create new users on XP, they are Administrator by
default, software houses can get away with it because users are insecure
by default anyway. Note in the Mac OSX world and the Linux/Unix/BSD
world, new users aren't root by default. (In fact, OSX comes with the
root account *disabled*).

Finally, there's the usual things such as Outlook making it very easy to
just click on email attachments to *run* them. The basic OS
architectural problem that just giving your file an .exe extension makes
them executable, and therefore if you find another bug like the MIME
bugs OE suffered from, you can leverage it to make executables attached
to email run automatically.

Of course, there are many users who can be socially engineered to run
anything (people download and run spyware voluntarily, and it's not even
emailed to them!) which would be a problem regardless of which OS is
run.

As for security culture: consider this. Although Apache by far and large
is the most common web server, all the serious exploits so far has been
for the minority web server - IIS (Code Red et al.) I'm still getting
hits from attempted Code Red infections. Perhaps there is something to
the differing security cultures since in an area where Microsoft are a
decided minority, they *still* are the attack vector of choice?

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Jim Fisher]

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message > The reason you cannot
is because companies/groups like AOPA waste time and
> money developing platform specific products because the programmers don't
> know any better.

Well, that plus the fact that Apple chose not to license their OS long ago
and changed history. I'm sure it sounded like a good idea at the time. ;)

--
Jim Fisher

[Andrew Gideon]

Peter Duniho wrote:

> "Wizard of Draws" > wrote in message
> news:BC7FD46C.66F2%jeffbREMOVE@REMOVEwizardofdraws .com...
>> Andrew isn't even close to a rabid Mac fanatic on the basis of what he's
>> posted here.
>
> Of course he is. Anyone silly enough to claim that using a Mac is in and
> of itself safe computing (or that using a Windows machine in and of itself
> is not) is by definition a rabid Mac fanatic.

> Of course, most Mac users are rabid Mac fanatics. It's the only way Apple
> could have hoped to have survived under their business model.

Psst: I don't even use a Mac. There are some on my floor at work, but none
in my home and none in my actual office. How rabid is that? And if I'm
that rabid, what does this say about you and your prejudices?

This is good, though. Perhaps your mistaken assumption about me is enough
to raise a flag in your mind about those prejudices. And recognizing a
problem is a necessary first step in correcting it.

That's what I think we need to do with AOPA: help them recognize the
problem: that they're encouraging a dangerous monoculture.

- Andrew

[Andrew Gideon]

Dylan Smith wrote:

> (In fact, OSX comes with the
> root account *disabled*).

I only learned of this recently (in discussion on system security in a forum
where it's on topic {8^). It's a nice touch.

[...]

> As for security culture: consider this. Although Apache by far and large
> is the most common web server, all the serious exploits so far has been
> for the minority web server - IIS (Code Red et al.) I'm still getting
> hits from attempted Code Red infections. Perhaps there is something to
> the differing security cultures since in an area where Microsoft are a
> decided minority, they *still* are the attack vector of choice?

MSFT fanatics ignore data like this. To them, they're the majority
everywhere. But it's getting some press, even outside the trades that only
professionals see. I think there was even an article in the Washington
Post on this a number of months back.

Ah, I've found:


http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A34978-2003Aug23&notFound=true

Not quite your point, but related.

- Andrew

[Gig Giacona]

I was a Mac user back at version something. About 5 years ago I gave up.
Yes they have a great operating system but Apple has done everything
possible to screw up the adoption of it by the general public.

According to Google Zeitgeist the operating systems used to access Google
during February 2004 by percentage were

Windows 98 23%
Windows XP 46%
Windows 2000 18%
Windows NT 3%
Windows 95 1 %
Mac 4%
Linux 1%
Other 1%

That's 91% for Windows.

There just isn't the base out there for every body to port every thing to
non-Windows OS. Hell, the virus writers don't even port their stuff to Mac.



"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
online.com...
> Morgans wrote:
>
> > Who cares? You are a very small minority. (only half a grin, here)
>
> The question is: Does AOPA care (about the minority that doesn't spew
> viruses at everyone {8^) ?
>
> I am, after all, an AOPA member.
>
> Seriously: I spend a nontrivial amount of effort selling people on
> non-viral-farm solutions. Thanks to Apple's OSX, this is actually quite
> feasible for the nontechnical today.
>
> So what is AOPA saying about safe computing (and never mind monocultures)
if
> they ignore us?
>
> - Andrew
>

[Andrew Gideon]

Travis Marlatte wrote:

> AOPA - please use my money to keep airports open and ADs to a safe
> minimum. --

Agreed. AOPA: Just provide pointers on the web site to various planning
products, and spend our money on your mandate.

- Andrew

[Gig Giacona]

"Blanche" > wrote in message
...
> Peter Duniho > wrote:
> >"Wizard of Draws" > wrote in message
> >> Andrew isn't even close to a rabid Mac fanatic on the basis of what
he's
> >> posted here.
> >
> >Of course he is. Anyone silly enough to claim that using a Mac is in and
of
> >itself safe computing (or that using a Windows machine in and of itself
is
> >not) is by definition a rabid Mac fanatic.
> >
> >Of course, most Mac users are rabid Mac fanatics. It's the only way
Apple
> >could have hoped to have survived under their business model.
>
> Perhaps I missed something. Where did Andrew state he was a Mac
> user?
>

He did mention Mac OSX
>

[Andrew Gideon]

Gig Giacona wrote:

> He did mention Mac OSX

I [probably] did. I don't use it myself, but I see it as the "up and
comer". While I don't myself deal much with office or home computing
(beyond my own home, anyway), I see a lot of traffic in groups where I
participate that describes people switching. More, I encourage it where I
can given the concerns about MSFT security and the more general monoculture
problem.

Further, while I'm a long time UNIX user (I've had some interesting desktops
at work: A SUN 3/50, a DEC Pro-350 running some UNIX, an HP "Bobcat" (I
forget the model number), a MicroVAX etc.), I recognize that this may not
be a good solution for those not technically inclined. The current Apple
product, though, appears a good choice for those people.

That is, it's a good choice except where companies permit programmers to
build single-vendor solutions. Note that we're not speaking of "porting".
Cross platform support should be designed in at the beginning, eliminating
the need for a "port". Even ten years ago, there were various libraries
that provided GUI constructs to programmers which worked on multiple
platforms, for example. Have these all disappeared?

- Andrew

[Dan Truesdell]

Having done much cross-platform work, I find the process very
frustrating because you need to program to the lowest common
denominator. (A number of years back, I was forced to write my own
memory manager because the one MS provided at the time was a piece of
junk.) This is one of the benefits of languages like Java.
Platform-independent and full of useful libraries. Unfortunately, I
think one of the posters on this thread is correct. I think this is a
derivative of something from Jepp. The map interface looks a lot like
their FlightPro IFR simulator. I'm sure the program could have been
done in Java, but I would guess that the budget for the project was
small (understandably) and Jepp probably wanted the exposure. I do like
the ability of clicking on an airport and bringing up the IAPs or
airport diagrams that AOPA has on it's web site, but, again, this still
could have been cross-platform if desired.

Andrew Gideon wrote:
> Gig Giacona wrote:
>
>
>>He did mention Mac OSX
>
>
> I [probably] did. I don't use it myself, but I see it as the "up and
> comer". While I don't myself deal much with office or home computing
> (beyond my own home, anyway), I see a lot of traffic in groups where I
> participate that describes people switching. More, I encourage it where I
> can given the concerns about MSFT security and the more general monoculture
> problem.
>
> Further, while I'm a long time UNIX user (I've had some interesting desktops
> at work: A SUN 3/50, a DEC Pro-350 running some UNIX, an HP "Bobcat" (I
> forget the model number), a MicroVAX etc.), I recognize that this may not
> be a good solution for those not technically inclined. The current Apple
> product, though, appears a good choice for those people.
>
> That is, it's a good choice except where companies permit programmers to
> build single-vendor solutions. Note that we're not speaking of "porting".
> Cross platform support should be designed in at the beginning, eliminating
> the need for a "port". Even ten years ago, there were various libraries
> that provided GUI constructs to programmers which worked on multiple
> platforms, for example. Have these all disappeared?
>
> - Andrew
>


--
Remove "2PLANES" to reply.

[Jay Masino]

Tony Cox > wrote:
> If you are using Linux or Solaris, have you tried running the
> application with 'wine' (www.winehq.com)?
> I've tried several Windows native applications on Linux and
> had no problems, although I've not yet tried the flight planner.
> ('wine' is a free Windows API emulator that runs on a variety
> of other OS)

It seems to only support Solaris X86, not Sparc. And it doesn't seem
to have support for Mac OSX, either. Nevertheless, I downloaded
the source and compiled it on my Sun (sparc), anyway. It's coming up
with some errors that I might try and figure out on Monday.

--- Jay


--

__!__
Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
http://www2.ari.net/jmasino ! ! !
http://www.oceancityairport.com
http://www.oc-adolfos.com

[Frank]

C J Campbell wrote:

> If the market was worth the development cost then they would do it. It is
> all about money. No one gives a #*&^( about your opinion that one OS is
> 'better' than another.
>
> Last I looked, AOPA was based in the United States, not some lunatic's
> idea of a socialist paradise that requires equal effort be spent on all
> operating systems, no matter how few people use each one.

If the AOPA planner wasn't a web based application then I'd agree with you.
Current market conditions would make it very difficult to justify spending
even a small extra amount to provide support for Linux and OSX.

But development for web based content that is platform independent need not
cost any more. Combine that with the fact that Mac and Linux usage is
growing and I think it makes AOPA look rather short sighted.

At some point Macs and Linux boxen may become a large enough segment that
AOPA will want to provide support for them. Porting a Windows only app will
then add to whatever it cost them now.

The Internet works best when it is platform independent and so everytime
someone puts content out that excludes a whole class machines we all lose.

--
Frank....H

[Dylan Smith]

In article >, Jay Masino wrote:
> Tony Cox > wrote:
>> If you are using Linux or Solaris, have you tried running the
>> application with 'wine' (www.winehq.com)?

> It seems to only support Solaris X86, not Sparc.i

Wine just provides the Win32 API and associated cruft. If you have a
Sparc binary for Windows (unlikely!) then Wine would work with it -
otherwise since your Sparc doesn't do ia32 instructions, you're
buggered unless you have an ia32 emulator.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Peter Gottlieb]

Are you always such an ignorant a**hole?


"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> If the market was worth the development cost then they would do it. It is
> all about money. No one gives a #*&^( about your opinion that one OS is
> 'better' than another.
>
> Last I looked, AOPA was based in the United States, not some lunatic's
idea
> of a socialist paradise that requires equal effort be spent on all
operating
> systems, no matter how few people use each one.
>
>

[Peter Gottlieb]

Ah, so the only good product is the one that the sheeple buy?


"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Sylvain,
>
> > I prefer to use a real computer myself, but there are some simple
> > solution: commercial solutions like I use myself (running AOPA Flight
> > Planning under either VMware or VirtualPC -- the former making it
possible
> > to run it from Linux, among other things, the latter from Macintosh);
or
> > another free solution: AOPA Flight Planning works just fine under Wine
> > (under linux);
> >
>
> This made me fall of my seat with laughter: You claim to be using "a real
> computer" and then go on to describe how to use the "real computer" to
make
> it behave like a "non-real computer"???? Jeeze...
>
> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
>

[Peter Gottlieb]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
>> Personally, I have to agree with both AOPA and Peter. The vast majority
> of AOPA members would have to consider a Mac/Linux-or-whatever version
> a colossal waste of their money. And the "security by minority" scheme
> doesn't work.

Um, I'm seeing a huge demand for offices to switch to Linux due to security
concerns. If you think "security by minority" is why Linux is more secure
then your words are extended beyond your knowledge. I am also baffled by
your opinion that Linux is a "collosal waste" of money. Price Windows XP
Pro and Office XP and compare to any of the commercially supported Linux
distributions with StarOffice or OpenOffice. Large corporations and
governments are indeed making the switch based on cost savings alone (e.g.,
Israel). Or pay the same price and instead of the product you get some
serious support, training and customization (e.g., Germany). Studies by
large corporations have shown that Linux is now easier to install than
Windows and is just as easy for end users to operate (e.g., Siemens).

But, you're entitled to your opinion.

[Tony Cox]

"Jay Masino" > wrote in message
...
> Tony Cox > wrote:
> > If you are using Linux or Solaris, have you tried running the
> > application with 'wine' (www.winehq.com)?
> > I've tried several Windows native applications on Linux and
> > had no problems, although I've not yet tried the flight planner.
> > ('wine' is a free Windows API emulator that runs on a variety
> > of other OS)
>
> It seems to only support Solaris X86, not Sparc. And it doesn't seem
> to have support for Mac OSX, either. Nevertheless, I downloaded
> the source and compiled it on my Sun (sparc), anyway. It's coming up
> with some errors that I might try and figure out on Monday.
>

I don't think that will work. As I remember, 'wine' is designed around
IA32, at least as far as running native Windows applications is concerned.
If you had the source for the Flight Planner that would be a different
matter...

(It works by actually running code from the Windows application image,
jumping out to emulator code for all Windows API calls, such as system
services and graphic calls. It converts the latter to Unix-style posix calls
and X-windows calls respectively. In typical smart-arse Unix-developer
speak,
'wine' stands for "wine is not {an} emulator", which I suppose is strictly
correct if a little misleading).

If you have Linux SUSE, 'wine' is an optional product that you can just
install from the CD.

[Peter Gottlieb]

The browser identity string is settable on Linux browsers and many are set
to show themselves as being Windows machines running IE. This is because
there are a lot of sites that block entry unless IE on MS.

Nevertheless, Windows is still the predominant platform for desktops. But
don't count on that forever - corporate America is poised to make the jump,
led by IBM and others, to Linux. Good or bad, that is happening now.
Personally, I am for the freedom to use whatever platform you want (right
now most of my stuff is Windows), and not support a private standard such as
MS.


"Gig Giacona" > wrote in message
...
> I was a Mac user back at version something. About 5 years ago I gave up.
> Yes they have a great operating system but Apple has done everything
> possible to screw up the adoption of it by the general public.
>
> According to Google Zeitgeist the operating systems used to access Google
> during February 2004 by percentage were
>
> Windows 98 23%
> Windows XP 46%
> Windows 2000 18%
> Windows NT 3%
> Windows 95 1 %
> Mac 4%
> Linux 1%
> Other 1%
>
> That's 91% for Windows.
>
> There just isn't the base out there for every body to port every thing to
> non-Windows OS. Hell, the virus writers don't even port their stuff to
Mac.
>
>
>
> "Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
> online.com...
> > Morgans wrote:
> >
> > > Who cares? You are a very small minority. (only half a grin, here)
> >
> > The question is: Does AOPA care (about the minority that doesn't spew
> > viruses at everyone {8^) ?
> >
> > I am, after all, an AOPA member.
> >
> > Seriously: I spend a nontrivial amount of effort selling people on
> > non-viral-farm solutions. Thanks to Apple's OSX, this is actually quite
> > feasible for the nontechnical today.
> >
> > So what is AOPA saying about safe computing (and never mind
monocultures)
> if
> > they ignore us?
> >
> > - Andrew
> >
>
>

[Andrew Gideon]

Peter Gottlieb wrote:

> But
> don't count on that forever - corporate America is poised to make the
> jump,
> led by IBM and others, to Linux. Good or bad, that is happening now.

We're a Solaris/Linux shop here, but I'm *very* aware of Apple's UNIX
product. A lot of desktop moves that might have been to Linux a year or
two ago are instead going to Apple. I cannot speak from my own experience,
but I think it a safe assumption that the Apple product is easier for
neophytes to use than Linux.

Of course, I personally still use a window manager (olvwm) from well over
ten years ago. The object model that most Linux managers use today leads,
in my opinion, to a cluttered screen that's tough to navigate. But Apple's
modal interface seems even worse to me.

The point being that I'm a poor judge of what UIs others would like. Still,
I think Apple on the desktop a good bet.

- Andrew

[David Brooks]

I don't understand. This implies to me that they used to offer support for
other platforms, and have withdrawn it. The use of the words "remaining" and
"eliminated" are pretty clear here.

While the fact is they have provided an *increment* on what was previously
available. It's a but reminiscent of people trying to explain how adding gay
marriage will destroy traditional marriages.

-- David Brooks

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
gonline.com...
> I tried to go to the AOPA Flight Planning web page today, and found that
the
> only option remaining is to download a Microsoft-only application. This
> seems annoying.
>
> Sure, I was able to go directly to the duat web site, and it was fine.
But
> I'm a member of AOPA, and they've eliminated a benefit from my use merely
> because I prefer to use a more robust computing environment.
>
> Especially given what's going on with viruses, worms, zombie machines, and
> the like, requiring that AOPA members used one particular unsafe platform
> to exercise an organization benefit seems foolish.
>
> Has this issue been raised to AOPA and ignored? Is something in the works
> for the rest of us? Anyone here know what's going on?
>
> - Andrew
>

[David Brooks]

Oh, wait, there was a web-based planner, wasn't there. I take back; let's
ask AOPA to restore it. Then I can run it from Redhat Linux running in
Virtual PC on my XP laptop :-)

-- David Brooks

"David Brooks" > wrote in message
...
> I don't understand. This implies to me that they used to offer support for
> other platforms, and have withdrawn it. The use of the words "remaining"
and
> "eliminated" are pretty clear here.
>
> While the fact is they have provided an *increment* on what was previously
> available. It's a but reminiscent of people trying to explain how adding
gay
> marriage will destroy traditional marriages.
>
> -- David Brooks
>
> "Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
> gonline.com...
> > I tried to go to the AOPA Flight Planning web page today, and found that
> the
> > only option remaining is to download a Microsoft-only application. This
> > seems annoying.
> >
> > Sure, I was able to go directly to the duat web site, and it was fine.
> But
> > I'm a member of AOPA, and they've eliminated a benefit from my use
merely
> > because I prefer to use a more robust computing environment.
> >
> > Especially given what's going on with viruses, worms, zombie machines,
and
> > the like, requiring that AOPA members used one particular unsafe
platform
> > to exercise an organization benefit seems foolish.
> >
> > Has this issue been raised to AOPA and ignored? Is something in the
works
> > for the rest of us? Anyone here know what's going on?
> >
> > - Andrew
> >
>
>

[Dave Stadt]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Eric Rood" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > Peter Duniho wrote:
> >
> > > Don't get me wrong, I think MacOS and Linux are great options, and
each
> has
> > > lots to offer in their own way. It's just that when someone goes
around
> > > claiming that those options are inherently secure while Windows is
> > > inherently not secure, it's obvious the hamster's not engaged
upstairs.
> >
> > Windows is insecure enough that the US Army migrated to Apple software
> based
> > servers to improve security of it's network several year ago.
> >
>
> BWAAHAHA! What a colossal waste of money! That is like trying to improve
> security by moving the hinges of a gate from one side to the other.
>
> Yep. Mac OS -- endorsed by the United States Army. The same people who
> brought you wasted billions on trying to find out if psychics could see
what
> the enemy is up to are now improving security by playing with toy
> computers....

But they come in such pretty colors.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Peter Duniho wrote:
>
> Don't get me wrong, I think MacOS and Linux are great options, and each has
> lots to offer in their own way. It's just that when someone goes around
> claiming that those options are inherently secure while Windows is
> inherently not secure, it's obvious the hamster's not engaged upstairs.

Yep. My brother's a Mac fanatic by any definition. He just picked up a virus
and was outraged. Been using computers for probably 20 years (and raising Cain
about how insecure Windows is for at least half of that). His hamster's spinning
the cage in this respect.

George Patterson
Battle, n; A method of untying with the teeth a political knot that would
not yield to the tongue.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Jay Masino wrote:
>
> AOPA should have just left it as a Web application.

AOPA didn't have anything to say in the matter. The application is provided by
Jeppesen.

George Patterson
Battle, n; A method of untying with the teeth a political knot that would
not yield to the tongue.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Kai Glaesner wrote:
>
> I think the reason for the windows-only Flight Planner is, that the just use
> a scaled down version of Jeppesen FliteStar for rendering/showing the maps.

You've got it.

George Patterson
Battle, n; A method of untying with the teeth a political knot that would
not yield to the tongue.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Peter Gottlieb wrote:
>
> Um, I'm seeing a huge demand for offices to switch to Linux due to security
> concerns.

That's encouraging. My former employer was a Unix shop until about 1990. At that
time, the company converted to Windows over the strident objections of the engineers
and developers because the programs which management wanted to use (Lotus, Word,
Excel, etc.) all ran only on Windows. It would be nice to see a system such as
Linux be able to handle the needs of all levels of corporations.

George Patterson
Battle, n; A method of untying with the teeth a political knot that would
not yield to the tongue.

[C J Campbell]

"Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
t...
> Are you always such an ignorant a**hole?
>

Generally. There have been rare exceptions when I was even more ignorant.

I am certain your carefully reasoned reply completely refutes my point.
However, I will ignorantly continue to maintain my point of view. After all,
the whole Microsoft vs. everybody else debate really is nothing more nor
less than a religious holy war. Reason has no place in it.

[Jim Fisher]

"Sylvain" > wrote in message
> info about knoppix can be found here (it is a very neat Debian based
> distribution of Linux that boots from the CD, i.e., neat for those
> who'd like to try what a real OS looks like without having to
> install anything on their PC): http://www.knoppix.org/

That is just too cool. Thanks.

--
Jim Fisher

[Jim Fisher]

"Sylvain" > wrote in message
eat for those
> who'd like to try what a real OS looks like without having to
> install anything on their PC): http://www.knoppix.org/


To hasty in my thanks. It seems all the mirrors are broken at the moment.
;(

--
Jim Fisher

[Wizard of Draws]

On 3/18/04 11:11 PM, in article , "Peter
Duniho" > wrote:

> "Wizard of Draws" > wrote in message
> news:BC7FD46C.66F2%jeffbREMOVE@REMOVEwizardofdraws .com...
>> Andrew isn't even close to a rabid Mac fanatic on the basis of what he's
>> posted here.
>
> Of course he is. Anyone silly enough to claim that using a Mac is in and of
> itself safe computing (or that using a Windows machine in and of itself is
> not) is by definition a rabid Mac fanatic.
>
> Of course, most Mac users are rabid Mac fanatics. It's the only way Apple
> could have hoped to have survived under their business model.
>
>
Your definition seems to be a bit different than mine.

I would use the terms 'rabid' and 'fanatic' for the Mac users that sent
death threats to the person who recently claimed to put PC components in a
G5 case. IIRC, it was a joke, but the rabid fanatics went ballistic.
Somehow, Andrew doesn't fit in the same mold from my perspective. And I, by
the grace of God and Stephen Jobs, use a Mac.
--
Jeff 'The Wizard of Draws' Bucchino
Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
www.wizardofdraws.com
www.cartoonclipart.com

[Peter Duniho]

"Wizard of Draws" > wrote in message
news:BC811E28.6949%jeffbREMOVE@REMOVEwizardofdraws .com...
> Your definition seems to be a bit different than mine.
>
> I would use the terms 'rabid' and 'fanatic' for the Mac users that sent
> death threats to the person who recently claimed to put PC components in a
> G5 case. IIRC, it was a joke, but the rabid fanatics went ballistic.

Anyone who's love for their preferred hardware or software causes them to
make completely false statements about the relative merits of that preferred
hardware or software is a rabid fanatic. No death threats are required.

By the way, G5 cases *have* been used for PC hardware, and Mac hardware
*has* been installed inside regular PC cases. The reason for putting PC
hardware in a G5 (or any recent Mac) case is obvious: they look damn good.
Mac hardware in a PC case has been done as a way to reduce the desktop
clutter; in the situation I know of, it co-existed with PC hardware, with a
normal KVM switch to select which to use.

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
online.com...
> Dylan Smith wrote:
> > As for security culture: consider this. Although Apache by far and large
> > is the most common web server, all the serious exploits so far has been
> > for the minority web server - IIS [...]
>
> MSFT fanatics ignore data like this.

They (and thinking people who aren't fanatics) ignore it because it's
misleading and inaccurate. Such as the statement that "all the serious
exploits so far..." for example. There has only been the one IIS exploit in
the wild (the variants of Code Red don't count as new "serious exploits"),
and the use of the word "all" is just so much propaganda to attempt to
influence the reader to think there's a huge problem.

Beyond that, Code Red came out AFTER the vulnerability had been fixed and
WIDELY PUBLICIZED. Duh. When the press spends all of its time talking
about the security vulnerabilities in Windows, it greatly increases the odds
of someone taking that information and creating an exploit from one.

Mac and Linux vulnerabilities just don't make for news that sells papers,
mostly because they are such niches. When vulnerabilities in Apache are
found, they sometimes make the trade papers, but you'll never see WSJ,
MSNBC, or USA Today wasting time reporting them.

You need to look at the big picture. Computer security is as much about
human nature as it is about security holes and installed base.

Pete

[Wizard of Draws]

On 3/19/04 10:05 PM, in article , "Peter
Duniho" > wrote:

>
> By the way, G5 cases *have* been used for PC hardware, and Mac hardware
> *has* been installed inside regular PC cases. The reason for putting PC
> hardware in a G5 (or any recent Mac) case is obvious: they look damn good.
> Mac hardware in a PC case has been done as a way to reduce the desktop
> clutter; in the situation I know of, it co-existed with PC hardware, with a
> normal KVM switch to select which to use.
>

The horror!
--
Jeff 'The Wizard of Draws' Bucchino
Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
www.wizardofdraws.com
www.cartoonclipart.com

[Peter Duniho]

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
> The problem with Windows is cultural. Windows comes from a single user,
> single tasking culture - and many of its features have been added on
> without regard for the fact they might be connected to a public network.
> [...] if you buy a brand
> new Windows package with all the latest updates, it STILL has the RPC
> ports open by default, despite all the worms that have exploited holes
> in it!

True. Things should be shut down by default, not open. However, as you
say, this is a cultural thing. For any software company, and especially for
Microsoft, one of the biggest cost centers is customer support. Most of the
calls are for stupid things like "what icon do I click to read email"?
Cost-wise, in the past, it has been much less expensive to enable everything
by default, so Microsoft doesn't have to answer phone calls that are
basically just asking how to turn the light switch on.

I disagree that it's ALL Microsoft's fault. It's mostly simple economics.
Of course, now security issues are touching the bottom line, generating
plenty of bad press. They are now more important than saving some money
over at Product Support Services. This is a good thing.

> Then there's the software writer part of the Windows culture. Many
> software companies are still writing software which won't run at all or
> not properly unless you are running as administrator - meaning users are
> forced to run insecurely if they want to run some software.

I'd be curious to see what happened to the Windows Logo program. It was
instituted when Win95 was released, and had a long list of strict
requirements a program had to meet, otherwise the Windows logo could not be
displayed on product packaging. I know in the year or so after, it got
watered down a lot.

I haven't checked up on it lately to see if it's still around, or what it
requires if it is. It ought to require that software run under restricted
accounts unless there's a good reason for them not to.

IMHO, end-user software that requires the user to be admin should be taken
out and shot. There's even software out there now that actually *checks* to
see if you're admin, and refuses to run if you're not. This prevents people
who know how to modify security settings from allowing the software to run
(usually all that needs to be changed is access rights to a single
subdirectory and/or registry key).

No difference here from other single-user paradigm environments though, the
Mac being one. MacOS X has required a major learning curve from the old Mac
camp, just as XP is requiring from the old Windows camp.

> Finally, there's the usual things such as Outlook making it very easy to
> just click on email attachments to *run* them. The basic OS
> architectural problem that just giving your file an .exe extension makes
> them executable, and therefore if you find another bug like the MIME
> bugs OE suffered from, you can leverage it to make executables attached
> to email run automatically.

As opposed to Unix where you can attempt to run ANY file, regardless of
extension? I'm not sure what your point here is.

> Of course, there are many users who can be socially engineered to run
> anything (people download and run spyware voluntarily, and it's not even
> emailed to them!) which would be a problem regardless of which OS is
> run.

And it is a problem. The vast majority of viruses and worms are dependent
solely on human factors. In fact, some of the most successful viruses
contain no code at all. They are just plain text email messages.

> As for security culture: consider this. Although Apache by far and large
> is the most common web server, all the serious exploits so far has been
> for the minority web server - IIS (Code Red et al.)

See my other message.

Pete

[Bob Noel]

In article >, "Gig Giacona"
> wrote:

> I was a Mac user back at version something. About 5 years ago I gave up.
> Yes they have a great operating system but Apple has done everything
> possible to screw up the adoption of it by the general public.
>
> According to Google Zeitgeist the operating systems used to access Google
> during February 2004 by percentage were
>
> Windows 98 23%
> Windows XP 46%
> Windows 2000 18%
> Windows NT 3%
> Windows 95 1 %
> Mac 4%
> Linux 1%
> Other 1%
>
> That's 91% for Windows.
>
> There just isn't the base out there for every body to port every thing to
> non-Windows OS. Hell, the virus writers don't even port their stuff to
> Mac.
>

the numbers cannot be trusted because browsers can be configured
to lie to the server. The lie is required in part because some
web weenies are complete idiots, "designing" the site so that it
only supports MSIE (we don't need that pesky web paradigm, do we?)

--
Bob Noel

[Bob Noel]

In article >, "Jim
Fisher" > wrote:

> "Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
> > I tried to go to the AOPA Flight Planning web page today, and found
> > that
> the
> > only option remaining is to download a Microsoft-only application.
> > This
> > seems annoying.
>
> Why should AOPA devote substantial time and resources to develop
> something
> that much less than 3% (the percentage of non-MS systems in homes out
> there)
> of their readership would ever use?

why write a ms-based app?

why not a web-based?

(btw - your "3%" number is incorrect)

--
Bob Noel

[Morgans]

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote
>
> That's what I think we need to do with AOPA: help them recognize the
> problem: that they're encouraging a dangerous monoculture.
>
> - Andrew

You still don't get it AOPA is trying to provide a service to the vast
majority of it's members. It will switch to a different platform when the
majority, or a significant percentage, are using a different platform They
are not going to be out to DRIVE for change. It is not their place.

Get off it, already.
--
Jim in NC


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.629 / Virus Database: 403 - Release Date: 3/18/2004

[Jim Fisher]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
>
> (btw - your "3%" number is incorrect)


Oh? What is the percentage of Windows to Non-Windows systems in the HOME as
I stated, Bob?

--
Jim Fisher

[Dylan Smith]

In article >, Jim Fisher wrote:
> "Sylvain" > wrote in message
>> info about knoppix can be found here (it is a very neat Debian based
>> distribution of Linux that boots from the CD, i.e., neat for those
>> who'd like to try what a real OS looks like without having to
>> install anything on their PC): http://www.knoppix.org/
>
> That is just too cool. Thanks.

Knoppix IS cool.

I've had to duplicate a number of hard disk images. With Knoppix, I can
sysprep the Windows machine, boot with Knoppix, then "dd if=/dev/hda
bs=1K | gzip | nc some-remote-machine" and on the remote machine, netcat
the incoming data to a file. Made my own custom Knoppix boot disks to
write hard disk images to new machines - stick 30 of the buggers on the
network, boot them with Knoppix and they automatically run the script
that images the new machine from the file on the server. Great way to
deploy new machines - an inexpensive disk duplicating factory for your
organization.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Dylan Smith]

In article >, Peter Duniho wrote:
>> architectural problem that just giving your file an .exe extension makes
>> them executable, and therefore if you find another bug like the MIME
>> bugs OE suffered from, you can leverage it to make executables attached
>> to email run automatically.
>
> As opposed to Unix where you can attempt to run ANY file, regardless of
> extension? I'm not sure what your point here is.

My point is that since under Unix, when email arrives, attachments don't
have the execute bit. They can't. They aren't on the filesystem. You
therefore can't double-click an executable attachment to run it from
your email client which is a GOOD thing. A bug in the email client that
automatically opens attachments can't be leveraged to run executables,
as it has with Outlook Express. MIME type bugs can't be exploited to
trick the mail client into automatically running executables - because
the file never has execute permission when it's sitting in your inbox.

Under Windows, on the other hand, .exe is execute permission *unless
it's already on the disk and you can use cacls to clear execute
permissions!* So the file is executable by default, merely by having a
..exe (or .bat, or one of about two dozen three letter extensions). Bugs
in MSIE are *still* being found that can be used to exploit this very
basic architectural vulnerability.

>> As for security culture: consider this. Although Apache by far and large
>> is the most common web server, all the serious exploits so far has been
>> for the minority web server - IIS (Code Red et al.)
>
> See my other message.

IIS is the niche product here, but it gets all the press about its
vulnerabilities.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Roger Halstead]

On Sat, 20 Mar 2004 00:02:49 -0500, "Morgans"
> wrote:

>
>"Andrew Gideon" > wrote
>>
>> That's what I think we need to do with AOPA: help them recognize the
>> problem: that they're encouraging a dangerous monoculture.
>>
>> - Andrew
>
>You still don't get it AOPA is trying to provide a service to the vast
>majority of it's members. It will switch to a different platform when the
>majority, or a significant percentage, are using a different platform They
>are not going to be out to DRIVE for change. It is not their place.
>
It's kinda like the firm that used to take care of my retirement
accounts. They installed a system that required you use IE to long
into your accounts. No other would work. At that point I rolled all my
accounts over to another brokerage firm.

I have not seen what AOPA has done, but if they have done something
like that is ver poor engineering practice as there if almost nothing
on the web that has to require a specific browser if they stick with
standard html and XHTML coding.

What one earth is is they have done any way?

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com


>Get off it, already.

[Thomas Borchert]

Jim,

> Oh? What is the percentage of Windows to Non-Windows systems in the HOME as
> I stated, Bob?
>

It's even lower. But I fear that's not what he meant.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Peter,

not sure how your post relates in any way to what I said. I don't think
it does. The point is this:

How can you claim that the "real computer" is so superior to Windows
and then go on to describe all the ways you use to make your "real
computer" into a Windows machine. That's ridiculous.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Peter,

> Um, I'm seeing a huge demand for offices to switch to Linux due to security
> concerns. If you think "security by minority" is why Linux is more secure
> then your words are extended beyond your knowledge.

I think we can both agree that currently, the vast majority of "bad guys" is
trying their wares on Windows and Windows only. The major reason is that
their chance of hitting someone is so big. The claim that "Macs are so much
more secure" is, in that context, dubious since the Ma's security isn't
really tested.

As for Linux (and, subsequently, the latest Mac OS), the security
architecture might be better - and we might see.

>I am also baffled by
> your opinion that Linux is a "collosal waste" of money. Price Windows XP
> Pro and Office XP and compare to any of the comme
>

That wasn't my opinion. Read back, please. My opinion was that AOPA would
have wasted money from the viewpoint of their Windows using members if they
had developed a Linux version.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Martin Hotze]

On Sat, 20 Mar 2004 00:19:17 GMT, G.R. Patterson III wrote:

>It would be nice to see a system such as
>Linux be able to handle the needs of all levels of corporations.

I'd say that many (esp. small) companies might have the need for a win OS.
Let'S assume a small company of 5 to 10 people working with a computer.
What is their need? Most of their business related work is done with a
solution software, mostly only available for windows, therefore this OS,
with this software they manage their clients, write their bills, etc.

and then there is the need for email and browsing. you can choose Outlook
Express and Internet Explorer or any other freely available program. As
there are many security concerns with OE and IE I'd suggest anything else
to use.

Now: this company sometimes has the need to do a small calculation or write
some letters that can't be written with their solution software. This is
the time to make the decision for buying a Microsoft Office suite for about
200 or 300 bucks or you can have the same features for 0,- bucks
(OpenOffice). I can't understand companies with the above structure and
situation still buying a MS office suite, needing to register with MS,
never versions bringing DRM, closed source, etc.

#m

NB: Agent released version 2 of their newsreader. Time to upgrade!

--
A far-reaching proposal from the FBI (...) would require all broadband
Internet providers, including cable modem and DSL companies, to rewire
their networks to support easy wiretapping by police.
http://news.com.com/2100-1028-5172948.html

[Mike Beede]

In article >, Peter Duniho > wrote:

> Maybe someone at AOPA has a brain and recognizes that a) people like you
> that think all you need to do to practice safe computing is to use a Mac are
> fooling themselves, and b) people like you that choose not to run Windows
> are a minority they can afford to **** off.

Kind of like pilots in the general population?

Mike Beede

[Martin Hotze]

On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 19:27:18 -0800, Peter Duniho wrote:

>However, as you
>say, this is a cultural thing. For any software company, and especially for
>Microsoft, one of the biggest cost centers is customer support. Most of the
>calls are for stupid things like "what icon do I click to read email"?
>Cost-wise, in the past, it has been much less expensive to enable everything
>by default, so Microsoft doesn't have to answer phone calls that are
>basically just asking how to turn the light switch on.

Everyone gets the customer he deserves. :-)

#m

--
A far-reaching proposal from the FBI (...) would require all broadband
Internet providers, including cable modem and DSL companies, to rewire
their networks to support easy wiretapping by police.
http://news.com.com/2100-1028-5172948.html

[Matthew P. Cummings]

On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 14:45:55 +0000, Tony Cox wrote:

> If you are using Linux or Solaris, have you tried running the
> application with 'wine' (www.winehq.com)?

I've tried using wine to run it, but it's not very good at it, though it
does run there are glitches in the graphics and it locks up.

If a person is desperate, then I highly suggest using VMWare, it's the
actual Windows OS of your choice and is pretty good.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Peter Duniho wrote:
>
> For any software company, and especially for
> Microsoft, one of the biggest cost centers is customer support.

The last time I needed to call Microsoft (in 1995 or '96), they billed you for
the call at some hefty rate per minute. Scott Adams actually used this as the
basis for one of Dogbert's ideas, which was to sell a purposely flawed product
cheap and make your money on the tech support charges (I am NOT claiming that MS
is doing this). Has Microsoft quit charging for help calls?

George Patterson
Battle, n; A method of untying with the teeth a political knot that would
not yield to the tongue.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Martin Hotze wrote:
>
> On Sat, 20 Mar 2004 00:19:17 GMT, G.R. Patterson III wrote:
>
> >It would be nice to see a system such as
> >Linux be able to handle the needs of all levels of corporations.
>
> I'd say that many (esp. small) companies might have the need for a win OS.

My former employer topped out at over 8,000 employees in 2001. Hardly small.
Company policy was that every employee had a Windows desktop services login.
Coders would also have Unix and/or MVS logins. These would be accessed by using
something like telnet on the Windows box. As of 2002, all this was on NT with
no plans to change.

> I can't understand companies with the above structure and
> situation still buying a MS office suite, needing to register with MS,
> never versions bringing DRM, closed source, etc.

The company also had a policy against using any sort of freeware. I don't know
why, but they felt they had excellent legal reasons to do so. Many other programs
(such as Word) were used because customers insisted on it.

George Patterson
Battle, n; A method of untying with the teeth a political knot that would
not yield to the tongue.

[Peter Duniho]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
> [...] Has Microsoft quit charging for help calls?

If you want phone support now, you have to pay. They have free online
support, which still costs money to provide. For that matter, I doubt that
the phone support fees actually cover the cost.

Product Support Services is not a revenue center. It's a cost center.

Pete

[Jay Masino]

Dylan Smith > wrote:
> Wine just provides the Win32 API and associated cruft. If you have a
> Sparc binary for Windows (unlikely!) then Wine would work with it -
> otherwise since your Sparc doesn't do ia32 instructions, you're
> buggered unless you have an ia32 emulator.

I had a feeling that might be the case, but I was hoping it was a
"real" emulator. The last time I played with wine was when it was in it's
infantile form, and I think the Linux kernel was something like 0.92 :)

--- Jay

--

__!__
Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
http://www2.ari.net/jmasino ! ! !
http://www.oceancityairport.com
http://www.oc-adolfos.com

[Dylan Smith]

In article >, Jay Masino wrote:
> I had a feeling that might be the case, but I was hoping it was a
> "real" emulator. The last time I played with wine was when it was in it's
> infantile form, and I think the Linux kernel was something like 0.92 :)

At that time there was a real emulator of sorts called WABI (Windows
Application Binary Interface). I think it was developed by Sun, and of
course it was Windows 3.1 at the time. WABI treated Intel instructions
as bytecode on non i386 systems, and provided the Win3.1 API. I remember
having to use it to read a Word for Windows document when I had an IBM
RS/6000 Model 220 on my desk, running AIX 4.something.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[One's Too Many]

For those folks who want to say that since MS is the majority
operating system and all others don't matter becasue they are an
unimportant minoroty, how would you feel if all of a sudden AOPA
started only offering general aviation support for people who own and
fly Cessnas just because there are more of them than any other GA
single-engine plane and used the excuse that all other brands of
aircraft are a minority and don't matter to them?

[Don Tuite]

So when is Plan 9 going to take over the world anyway?

Don

[Peter Gottlieb]

You know full well that is a secret!


"Don Tuite" > wrote in message
...
> So when is Plan 9 going to take over the world anyway?
>
> Don

[Bob]

David Brooks wrote:

> Oh, wait, there was a web-based planner, wasn't there. I take back; let's
> ask AOPA to restore it. Then I can run it from Redhat Linux running in
> Virtual PC on my XP laptop :-)

The web based planner was just CSC DUATS with the AOPA logo in front of it. CSC
DUATS didn't go anywhere, it's still at http://www.duats.com. Don't get too
excited, it still works just fine.


But for web based access, I prefer duat.com. duats.com is better when you are
using their front end software, Cirrus.

[David Brooks]

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Peter Duniho wrote:
> >> architectural problem that just giving your file an .exe extension
makes
> >> them executable, and therefore if you find another bug like the MIME
> >> bugs OE suffered from, you can leverage it to make executables attached
> >> to email run automatically.
> >
> > As opposed to Unix where you can attempt to run ANY file, regardless of
> > extension? I'm not sure what your point here is.
>
> My point is that since under Unix, when email arrives, attachments don't
> have the execute bit. They can't. They aren't on the filesystem. You
> therefore can't double-click an executable attachment to run it from
> your email client which is a GOOD thing. A bug in the email client that
> automatically opens attachments can't be leveraged to run executables,
> as it has with Outlook Express. MIME type bugs can't be exploited to
> trick the mail client into automatically running executables - because
> the file never has execute permission when it's sitting in your inbox.

That's not so. There is nothing stopping an email client from saving the
file, and setting the execute bit, if it finds (say by examining magic
words) that it is being asked to open an executable. In the environment of
trust backed up by knowledge that was briefly envisioned in the early 90's
it would have been the right thing to do, but there was few UNIX GUI mail
clients around. In the shadow of well-publicized Windows attacks, I doubt
there are any UNIX mail clients that do so, but you're not talking about a
fundamental difference in OS design.

What should a UNIX mail client do when you doubleclick an attachment with a
..sh extension? Whether you pipe a stream to the interpreter os save a temp
file, a shell script can screw you just as badly as an executable. IIRC,
dtmail would have done this while it was alive.


-- David Brooks

[Dylan Smith]

In article >, David Brooks wrote:
>> My point is that since under Unix, when email arrives, attachments don't
>> have the execute bit. They can't. They aren't on the filesystem. You

> That's not so. There is nothing stopping an email client from saving the
> file, and setting the execute bit, if it finds (say by examining magic
> words)

You're right - but the difference is if you are reusing code (which is a
good thing) and use the operating system's API to figure out what to do
with an attached file, under Windows, the OS bits will see ".exe" and
try and run it. The Unix APIs need to see an execute permission on the
filesystem to do the same thing. The attachment won't have it.

Under Windows, you have an Allow, Deny situation. You have to explicitly
code the email client to NOT do the default action. Under Unix you
essentially have a Deny, Allow situation. Therefore, you'd have to write
the client to explicitly ALLOW the thing to execute.

> What should a UNIX mail client do when you doubleclick an attachment with a
> .sh extension?

Open it in 'vi' of course. It doesn't have the execute bit set.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Doug Carter]

Bob wrote:
>
> David Brooks wrote:
>
>
>>Oh, wait, there was a web-based planner, wasn't there. I take back; let's
>>ask AOPA to restore it. Then I can run it from Redhat Linux running in
>>Virtual PC on my XP laptop :-)
>
>
> The web based planner was just CSC DUATS with the AOPA logo in front of it.

PLUS links from various results pages to the AOPA airport
directory, approach plates, etc.

I'm using CSC again since the new and improved AOPA
program doesn't run on Unix and I miss those features.

Still, I understand that the majority rules (unless its in
politics).

[Magnus]

I've tried it using virtual pc on my powerbook 1.33 ghz and it works
just fine. I also use Safelog on my vpc because there's not much in the
way of logbooks on the mac and this works fine too. I think it's
extremely comfortable to be able to use software that's too specialized
to ever get released for the mac without needing 2 computers.

Funny how it always ends up a raging OS war though.... "My daddy is
stronger than your daddy"!

On 2004-03-18 19:05:34 -0500, Andrew Gideon > said:

> I tried to go to the AOPA Flight Planning web page today, and found
> that the only option remaining is to download a Microsoft-only
> application. This seems annoying.
>
> Sure, I was able to go directly to the duat web site, and it was fine.
> But I'm a member of AOPA, and they've eliminated a benefit from my use
> merely because I prefer to use a more robust computing environment.
>
> Especially given what's going on with viruses, worms, zombie machines,
> and the like, requiring that AOPA members used one particular unsafe
> platform to exercise an organization benefit seems foolish.
>
> Has this issue been raised to AOPA and ignored? Is something in the
> works for the rest of us? Anyone here know what's going on?
>
> - Andrew

[David Brooks]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...

> I'd be curious to see what happened to the Windows Logo program. It was
> instituted when Win95 was released, and had a long list of strict
> requirements a program had to meet, otherwise the Windows logo could not
be
> displayed on product packaging. I know in the year or so after, it got
> watered down a lot.
>
> I haven't checked up on it lately to see if it's still around, or what it
> requires if it is. It ought to require that software run under restricted
> accounts unless there's a good reason for them not to.

It is still around, and the "designed for Windows XP" logo does require that
software will run under restricted accounts and in a multi-session
environment (with Fast User Switching or Terminal Server). Of course there's
an exception for features or entire products whose whole purpose requires
more privileges, such as system administration or monitoring. A problem is
that you can sell unlogo'ed software with no problem, and the home market is
pretty much unaware of the meaning of the logo or at least its various
instantiations. I dare say we could pump up awareness of it, but then we
might run into accusations of trying to close the market. Also, many people
give all of their accounts admin privileges routinely, partly because of the
large body of game software (e.g. Flight Sim 2002, I think :-( ) that
requires admin privileges for, now, no particularly good reason.

-- David Brooks

[G.R. Patterson III]

One's Too Many wrote:
>
> For those folks who want to say that since MS is the majority
> operating system and all others don't matter becasue they are an
> unimportant minoroty, how would you feel if all of a sudden AOPA
> started only offering general aviation support for people who own and
> fly Cessnas just because there are more of them than any other GA
> single-engine plane and used the excuse that all other brands of
> aircraft are a minority and don't matter to them?

Again. AOPA is NOT doing this. Jeppesen is.

George Patterson
Battle, n; A method of untying with the teeth a political knot that would
not yield to the tongue.

[Doug Carter]

G.R. Patterson III wrote:

> Again. AOPA is NOT doing this. Jeppesen is.

Did Jeppesen buy AOPA or do they have pictures of
AOPA management in compromising positions or something?

[G.R. Patterson III]

Doug Carter wrote:
>
> G.R. Patterson III wrote:
>
> > Again. AOPA is NOT doing this. Jeppesen is.
>
> Did Jeppesen buy AOPA or do they have pictures of
> AOPA management in compromising positions or something?

No. Jeppesen produced the program. AOPA provides it to their members for free.
If you want the program to support something besides Windows, talk to Jep.

George Patterson
Battle, n; A method of untying with the teeth a political knot that would
not yield to the tongue.

[Doug Carter]

G.R. Patterson III wrote:

>>>Again. AOPA is NOT doing this. Jeppesen is.
>>
>>Did Jeppesen buy AOPA or do they have pictures of
>>AOPA management in compromising positions or something?
>
> No. Jeppesen produced the program. AOPA provides it to their members for free.
> If you want the program to support something besides Windows, talk to Jep.

This could be interpreted as an assertion that AOPA has no
choice but to endorse
and promote Jeppesen's product and stop their support of
the CSC version.


I think it rather more likely that AOPA management decided
to switch to Jeppesen
because of the improved TFR support and the more
impressive graphics despite
the loss of non Microsoft equipped users.

As an AOPA member I hope Jeppesen provides the program for
free to AOPA; that
would be nice.

[Peter Gottlieb]

Bottom line is that it was supplied for very limited cost, and under such
circumstances, notwithstanding the various merits of different OS platforms,
it is better that it supports the greatest percentage of users.


"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Doug Carter wrote:
> >
> > G.R. Patterson III wrote:
> >
> > > Again. AOPA is NOT doing this. Jeppesen is.
> >
> > Did Jeppesen buy AOPA or do they have pictures of
> > AOPA management in compromising positions or something?
>
> No. Jeppesen produced the program. AOPA provides it to their members for
free.
> If you want the program to support something besides Windows, talk to Jep.
>
> George Patterson
> Battle, n; A method of untying with the teeth a political knot that
would
> not yield to the tongue.

[Doug Carter]

Peter Gottlieb wrote:
> Bottom line is that it was supplied for very limited cost, <snip>

I'm presuming that's the case because I think that AOPA is
well managed and
provides good value to the membership. Having said all
that, do you know that
it was provided at "very limited cost" or are you
presuming this as well?

[Peter Gottlieb]

"Low" cost is relative, my friend.


"Doug Carter" > wrote in message
...
> Peter Gottlieb wrote:
> > Bottom line is that it was supplied for very limited cost, <snip>
>
> I'm presuming that's the case because I think that AOPA is
> well managed and
> provides good value to the membership. Having said all
> that, do you know that
> it was provided at "very limited cost" or are you
> presuming this as well?

[Doug Carter]

Peter Gottlieb wrote:
> "Low" cost is relative, my friend.
>
>
> "Doug Carter" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Peter Gottlieb wrote:
>>
>>>Bottom line is that it was supplied for very limited cost, <snip>
>>
>>I'm presuming that's the case because I think that AOPA is
>>well managed and provides good value to the membership. Having said all
>>that, do you know that it was provided at "very limited cost" or are you
>>presuming this as well?
>

Where is "Low" lower relative to "very Limited?"

Never mind :)