Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!csd4.csd.uwm.edu!hammen
From: hammen@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Robert J. Hammen)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: More fuel to the WDEF virus fire
Message-ID: <1420@uwm.edu>
Date: 9 Dec 89 13:28:18 GMT
References: <12044@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> <3270@hub.UUCP> <3676@mace.cc.purdue.edu> <41538@improper.coherent.com> <1989Dec9.074425.18666@Neon.Stanford.EDU>
Sender: news@uwm.edu
Reply-To: hammen@ddsw1.mcs.com (Robert J. Hammen)
Organization: Personal Publishing
Lines: 18

In article <1989Dec9.074425.18666@Neon.Stanford.EDU> kaufman@Neon.Stanford.EDU (Marc T. Kaufman) writes:
>Yet another reason to use the Desktop Manager.  Too bad Apple is supressing
>its use for other than Appleshare servers (well, at least strongly recommending
>that people don't use it).

I was wondering about this. How susceptible is a Mac running the Desktop
Manager? Particularly if the none of the attached HD's have "real" Desktop
files? Not being intimately familiar with how the Desktop Manager handles
floppies, wouldn't it still be possible for floppies to become infected?

Desktop Manager will be "officially" supported in 7.0. Too bad it's been
such an "unofficial" hack for too long (though Apple is starting to come
around - they fixed Finder 6.1.4 so that it now will close the Desktop DB and
Desktop DF files). It works so much better than the "old" desktop file...
unless you have a ton of downloadable PostScript fonts (file copies become
very slow, until you eventually crash the machine). 

Robert