How can you tell what OS the original usenet news poster is using?

Discussion in 'Apple' started by sid sid, Nov 2, 2010.

  1. sid sid

    sid sid Guest

    How can you tell what OS the original usenet news poster is using?
     
    sid sid, Nov 2, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Read the headers. According to your headers, you're using WinXP.
     
    A Non E Mouse, Nov 2, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. sid sid

    Warren Oates Guest

    Those headers can be munged.
     
    Warren Oates, Nov 2, 2010
    #3
  4. sid sid

    Tom Stiller Guest

    What does that do for your confidence in using them?
     
    Tom Stiller, Nov 2, 2010
    #4
  5. sid sid

    Warren Oates Guest


    Teach your newsreader to lie and you'll feed the trolls forever ...
     
    Warren Oates, Nov 2, 2010
    #5
  6. sid sid

    Rick Jones Guest

    Particularly if they thought movies other than The Wild Bunch were the
    best ever :)

    rick jones
     
    Rick Jones, Nov 2, 2010
    #6
  7. sid sid

    Tom Stiller Guest

    No trick. If you're looking up headers, you probably have some question
    about the poster. In that case, why would you think the poster would
    supply correct information?
     
    Tom Stiller, Nov 2, 2010
    #7
  8. sid sid

    Warren Oates Guest

    Actually, I think that The Godfather is probably the best movie ever,
    but The Wild Bunch is right behind.
     
    Warren Oates, Nov 2, 2010
    #8
  9. sid sid

    dorayme Guest

    That's easy. You are a reasonable person if you think "Probably
    this is not munged". That is an exact expression of your
    confidence. If your confidence is anything else, then you are
    being unreasonable.
     
    dorayme, Nov 2, 2010
    #9
  10. Sorry, Steven; that's too straightforward!
    But it is the correct answer.....
     
    John McWilliams, Nov 3, 2010
    #10
  11. sid sid

    Tom Stiller Guest

    That's how you define "reasonable"? How do you define "gullible",
    "naive", or "cautious"?
     
    Tom Stiller, Nov 3, 2010
    #11
  12. sid sid

    Don Bruder Guest

    Assuming they even EXIST in/on a given posting - some newsreaders don't
    include the "vanity"/advertising headers at all, some allow easy
    customization/omission, or have add-ons or other tools available to make
    mangling them a no-brainer. Which basically leaves one unable to do
    anything more accurate than guess. And of course, all bets are off when
    the poster uses Google Groups or any of the other web-based posting
    interfaces - ALL browsers have toys (whether built-in or "aftermarket")
    available that allow diddling the "I'm using such-and-such browser on
    so-and-so OS" information to show anything desired, or nothing at all,
    usually with no need of any more knowledge/skill than "put what you want
    here in this edit-field and click OK".

    As an aside to the mouse - When did "WinXP" become a synonym for
    "Windows NT 5.1"??? (Assuming, of course, that the X-HTTP-UserAgent
    header in the OP's post hasn't been hacked as mentioned above.)

    And finally, to the OP, You can't - not with any degree of certainty.
    See above for why.
     
    Don Bruder, Nov 7, 2010
    #12
  13. All correct. Whcih is why I said, 'according to your headers'. If
    headers are modified, you can't use them in any accurate way. I don't
    usually bother messing with my headers, it's too much trouble for too
    little gain. Others may disagree.
    Again, correct.
    Back when MS released it in 2001. W2K is NT 5. WinXP is NT 5.1. Vista
    If the headers haven't been munged, and if the newsreader actually
    provides the user-agent line, you can have a fair idea.
     
    A Non E Mouse, Nov 7, 2010
    #13
  14. sid sid

    Don Bruder Guest

    Ah, OK. Tells ya how deeply I care about Windows! I've always been under
    the impression that 2K, XP, NT, etc were individual releases, similar to
    how here in Mac-land, we had System 7, 8, 9, etc. Without bothering to
    follow your link (not enough interest in the subject to cmd-click), it
    sounds like the reality is more comparable to our current "MacOS X 10.x
    <insert cat here>" system.
     
    Don Bruder, Nov 7, 2010
    #14
  15. sid sid

    Warren Oates Guest

    Pretty much true. NT was a pretty good OS. MS fucked it up with Win 95,
    98 and SE and stuff like that. You do know that NT 4 almost became the
    Mac OS, right?
     
    Warren Oates, Nov 7, 2010
    #15
  16. Weird huh? Me, I was rooting for BeOS.
     
    Jamie Kahn Genet, Nov 7, 2010
    #16
  17. sid sid

    Don Bruder Guest

    <BOGGLE>

    Tell me you're joking???

    Thank god for failed deals...

    <Imagines Macs suffering from the crap that afflicts Windows boxes>
     
    Don Bruder, Nov 9, 2010
    #17
  18. sid sid

    Don Bruder Guest

    If you code to Cocoa, that's essentially what you got, at least at the
    API level.
     
    Don Bruder, Nov 9, 2010
    #18
  19. sid sid

    Guest Guest

    it's true. apple was considering adopting nt, among various other
    options including beos, before they bought next.
     
    Guest, Nov 9, 2010
    #19
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.