AT&T news group service
Tom Mills
installing a news server. Should be up and running in about 30 days. I'm
not holding my breath, but has anyone else heard this?
Tom
The better-quality electrons flow in a vacuum. >_] | }
William R. Walsh
> I'm not holding my breath, but has anyone else heard this?
I haven't heard this.
...but...
My ISP was simply renaming and repackaging AT&T's Usenet server. AT&T made
some noise about taking their news server down, but I'm still here, using
the renamed and repackaged version of it.
William
Dana
in outlook express? I looked at the headers and noticed you was using
that. I am on AT&T also, and curious how you got that to work. e-mail me
off the group to da...@panix.com or just reply to this address.
Bill Noble
without replying directly to you so if you are not real you capture my
address, I will tell you that both eternal-september and teranews work fine
with outlook express, I use them both. If you are real, and you need help,
you can find me through my web page and I will help - but if you are a
robot/spider, this won't mean anything and we won't hear from you again. If
you are real, sorry for the paranoia, but it is hard earned paranoia
"Dana" <da...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.NEB.4.64.09...@panix2.panix.com...
Phil B
Bill,
On a related note. I signed up today on eternal-september per your recent
response on another thread here and configured outlook express. It works
fine. Thanks.
Phil B
Bill Noble
"Phil B" <pcb...@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
news:h9ucb3$hvl$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Michael Coslo
> well Dana - are you real or are you memorex.
> without replying directly to you so if you are not real you capture my
> address, I will tell you that both eternal-september and teranews work
> fine with outlook express, I use them both. If you are real, and you
> need help, you can find me through my web page and I will help - but if
> you are a robot/spider, this won't mean anything and we won't hear from
> you again. If you are real, sorry for the paranoia, but it is hard
> earned paranoia
Hi Bill,
I doubt that many spammers take the trouble to harvest addys in that
manner any more. Maybe in the early days of spam. That's some pretty low
yielding work.
And you're paranoid and use OE? that's an unusual combo.
- Mike -
Dana
group. I am for real and not a bot, LOL. I collect old radios as well, and
as a matter of fact, selling all my old parts.
Dana
On Tue, 29 Sep 2009, Bill Noble wrote:
Bill Noble
is no email reader included - MS wants you to use "windows live mail", which
is quite frankly not as nice as outlook express or the "windows mail"
included in Vista - I loaded thunderbird, and I don't like it very much
either - I wonder if this was really an anti-trust thing, or if it was
driven by security - if the former, it's worth some hacking to see if the
older program will work in Win7, if the latter, it is not.
thoughts?
"Dana" <da...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.NEB.4.64.09...@panix2.panix.com...
Jeffrey D Angus
> just a warning to those who migrate to Win7 (which I did yesterday) -
> there is no email reader included - MS wants you to use "windows live
> mail", which is quite frankly not as nice as outlook express or the
> "windows mail" included in Vista - I loaded thunderbird, and I don't
> like it very much either - I wonder if this was really an anti-trust
> thing, or if it was driven by security - if the former, it's worth some
> hacking to see if the older program will work in Win7, if the latter, it
> is not.
>
> thoughts?
What's wrong with Thunderbird? I've been using Mozilla products
as soon as they appeared. I absolutely REFUSE to allow outlook
or any other vairations of MS mail on my system.
Jeff
--
�Egotism is the anesthetic that dulls the pain of stupidity.�
Frank Leahy, Head coach, Notre Dame 1941-1954
Scott W. Harvey
> Bill Noble wrote:
>> just a warning to those who migrate to Win7 (which I did yesterday) -
>> there is no email reader included - MS wants you to use "windows live
>> mail", which is quite frankly not as nice as outlook express or the
>> "windows mail" included in Vista - I loaded thunderbird, and I don't
>> like it very much either - I wonder if this was really an anti-trust
>> thing, or if it was driven by security - if the former, it's worth
>> some hacking to see if the older program will work in Win7, if the
>> latter, it is not.
>>
>> thoughts?
>
> What's wrong with Thunderbird? I've been using Mozilla products
> as soon as they appeared. I absolutely REFUSE to allow outlook
> or any other vairations of MS mail on my system.
>
I'm wondering that myself...Outlook express sucks, quite frankly, and
windows mail is just about as good. I haven't tried Windows Live Mail,
but I'll bet it's pretty inadequate too...because MS would rather have
you upgrade to the full version of Outlook.
The scenario described by the previous above is one reason why I take a
dim view of many things Microsoft. They are notorious for abandoning
technologies and changing things with absolutely no feedback from users
as to the impact of these changes. With Vista and Office 2007, there
were major changes in the interfaces of those two products. Microsoft's
attitude seemed to be: "we think these changes are cool, you'll get used
to them. Trust us!". Both are unmitigated disasters.
IMO everyone who was unfortunate enough to have bought a system with
Vista preloaded on it should get upgraded to Windows 7 for FREE (yes, it
IS that bad).
Contrast that with the Mozilla products. I have Thunderbird configured
to read mail and newsgroups exactly as I have read them using other
programs since 1994. (Really....I am experienced enough with this to
know better than Microsoft the way I like these things to be for me).
The latest version of Firefox will still run decently on systems and
OSes that are 10 years old....Try that with the last two versions of IE.
-Scott
Bill Noble
arranges stuff, I happen to like the way OE works - yes, I could learn
thunderbird, and I could get over being annoyed at the new MS Live reader
that I'm using now, but my preference would be to have the arrangement of
stuff that the older MS program had.
Oh, and just FYI, there is apparently no photoeditor included either - they
want you to DL the MS Live thingie which is huge - and then you get back to
the photo editor that had been in Vista - grrrr. all I want to do is crop
and adjust brightness/contrast - I don't want to "publish", or share, or
blog or any of that stuff.....
"Jeffrey D Angus" <jan...@suddenlink.net> wrote in message
news:hc21j...@news2.newsguy.com...
Jeffrey D Angus
> nothing is inherently wrong with thunderbird, but I don't like the way
> it arranges stuff
Come on bill, you're starting to sound like John Byrns. What exactly
does Thunderbird do wrong? how does is display things that you don't
like?
> Oh, and just FYI, there is apparently no photoeditor included either -
> they want you to DL the MS Live thingie which is huge - and then you get
> back to the photo editor that had been in Vista - grrrr. all I want to
> do is crop and adjust brightness/contrast - I don't want to "publish",
> or share, or blog or any of that stuff.....
Buy an HP color printer, it comes bundled with an excellent "fix my
photo" package, you can let it play with the results or diddle with
them by hand. Fox emaple it took an almost useless picture shot in
inadequate lighting with a cell phone and brightened it up enough to
see what I was actually looking at.
D. Peter Maus
> Bill Noble wrote:
>> just a warning to those who migrate to Win7 (which I did yesterday) -
>> there is no email reader included - MS wants you to use "windows live
>> mail", which is quite frankly not as nice as outlook express or the
>> "windows mail" included in Vista - I loaded thunderbird, and I don't
>> like it very much either - I wonder if this was really an anti-trust
>> thing, or if it was driven by security - if the former, it's worth
>> some hacking to see if the older program will work in Win7, if the
>> latter, it is not.
>>
>> thoughts?
>
> What's wrong with Thunderbird? I've been using Mozilla products
> as soon as they appeared. I absolutely REFUSE to allow outlook
> or any other vairations of MS mail on my system.
>
> Jeff
>
>
I certainly agree with that thinking. Never used OE, or IE, never
will.
Thunderbird is eminently configurable. To your tastes. I've been
using 3.0 since alpha, and it's a nice piece of work. Clean,
intuitive, versatile. With nice security features.
Go for it.
Scott W. Harvey
> Bill Noble wrote:
>> nothing is inherently wrong with thunderbird, but I don't like the way
>> it arranges stuff
>
> Come on bill, you're starting to sound like John Byrns. What exactly
> does Thunderbird do wrong? how does is display things that you don't
> like?
I'm interested also....there's a way to configure thunderbird to behave
pretty much just like OE or any other newsreader/email client out there.
For example, I used Forte' Agent (a non-free program) for years because
it was enormously configurable to display everything exactly the way I
wanted. When Thunderbird came out a few years ago, I started using that
and forgot all about Agent.
>
>> Oh, and just FYI, there is apparently no photoeditor included either -
>> they want you to DL the MS Live thingie which is huge - and then you
>> get back to the photo editor that had been in Vista - grrrr. all I
>> want to do is crop and adjust brightness/contrast - I don't want to
>> "publish", or share, or blog or any of that stuff.....
>
Everything I have heard about Win 7 from those who have been using it
for awhile (beta testers and people who have obtained volume licensed
copies for evaulation) has been extremely positive, but this is one
issue that MS is going to have to address in a hurry. MS is apparently
giving you a base system on the DVD and having you download the
components you want over the internet in an a la carte fashion. That's
OK for folks who have access to broadband with generous download limits,
for people on dial-up or satellite, getting the OS configured is going
to take a loooooong time.
> Buy an HP color printer, it comes bundled with an excellent "fix my
> photo" package, you can let it play with the results or diddle with
> them by hand. Fox emaple it took an almost useless picture shot in
> inadequate lighting with a cell phone and brightened it up enough to
> see what I was actually looking at.
Or you can get GIMP. It's really nice and it's free. With the right
plug-ins, it does almost everything that Paint Shop Pro or Photoshop can
do, but you won't need anything else for basic photo editing.
-Scott
Bill Noble
> Bill Noble wrote:
>> nothing is inherently wrong with thunderbird, but I don't like the way
>> it arranges stuff
>
> Come on bill, you're starting to sound like John Byrns. What exactly
> does Thunderbird do wrong? how does is display things that you don't
> like?
>
>> Oh, and just FYI, there is apparently no photoeditor included either -
>> they want you to DL the MS Live thingie which is huge - and then you
>> get back to the photo editor that had been in Vista - grrrr. all I
>> want to do is crop and adjust brightness/contrast - I don't want to
>> "publish", or share, or blog or any of that stuff.....
>
> Buy an HP color printer, it comes bundled with an excellent "fix my
> photo" package, you can let it play with the results or diddle with
> them by hand. Fox emaple it took an almost useless picture shot in
> inadequate lighting with a cell phone and brightened it up enough to
> see what I was actually looking at.
>
> Jeff
>
1. I don't like the way it handles news groups - It's not wrong, it's
just not what I want - I haven't figured out how to tell it to hide read
messages, etc. I find the way it shows me everything rather than just
new stuff is not to my liking - and no, I haven't spent hours playing
with it, just the hour it took to figure out how to get it to DL mail
(it sets up accounts differently, and requires some not totally
intuitive inputs)
2. The mail rules are no better than outlook express, the arrangements
are less to my liking - why should I use it and struggle up the learning
curve.
as for HP - I have an HP B&W printer, I have an HP scanner - HP elects
to not support their scanners after a very short period of time, and
they include time out logic on their newer print cartridges - I think
I'm through with HP now - and why in heck should I have to buy a color
printer to be able to crop photographs? I don't want it to "fix" my
photo, I just want to crop it.
I did find, after downloading the MS Live photo thingie that there was a
tolerable editor included, so I think I will unistall the MS Live
photo thingie - I don't trust anything that needs SQL Server just to
edit photos.
Michael Coslo
>\
> I'm interested also....there's a way to configure thunderbird to behave
Where is the "automatically run macros and virus files" menu item?
- Mike -
Michael Coslo
>
>
> 1. I don't like the way it handles news groups - It's not wrong, it's
> just not what I want - I haven't figured out how to tell it to hide read
> messages,
menu:
View>threads>unread. unread goes away.
Unless you want the read messages to go away the instant you read them.
Which is probably not recommended anyhow.
> 2. The mail rules are no better than outlook express, the arrangements
> are less to my liking - why should I use it and struggle up the learning
> curve.
Don't have to just use what you like, and if there isn't anything out
there - well that's a problem.
> as for HP - I have an HP B&W printer, I have an HP scanner - HP elects
> to not support their scanners after a very short period of time, and
> they include time out logic on their newer print cartridges - I think
> I'm through with HP now - and why in heck should I have to buy a color
> printer to be able to crop photographs? I don't want it to "fix" my
> photo, I just want to crop it.
You don't have to. Jeff's suggestion was that if you did, you would have
something along for free that will do what you want. My biggest beef
with HP is that they scatter stuff all over your hard drive. I do have
one of their all in one machines though. Like it a lot. And even though
I hav Photoshop, I've tried out their editor, and it isn't too awful.
> I did find, after downloading the MS Live photo thingie that there was a
> tolerable editor included, so I think I will unistall the MS Live photo
> thingie - I don't trust anything that needs SQL Server just to edit photos.
I'll bet that if you spent enough time to learn T-Bird, you'd find that
its not too awful bad.
- Mike -
Michael Coslo
> On 10/25/09 12:25 , Jeffrey D Angus wrote:
<snip>
>>
>> What's wrong with Thunderbird? I've been using Mozilla products
>> as soon as they appeared. I absolutely REFUSE to allow outlook
>> or any other vairations of MS mail on my system.
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>>
>
>
> I certainly agree with that thinking. Never used OE, or IE, never will.
>
> Thunderbird is eminently configurable. To your tastes. I've been using
> 3.0 since alpha, and it's a nice piece of work. Clean, intuitive,
> versatile. With nice security features.
T-Bird is a fine product, and you don't have "security patches" to
upload every month. That anyone would use either OE or IE is mind
boggling to me. They are computing's version of unprotected sex with a
known HIV + person.
- Mike -
sidejobscooter
> Jeffrey D Angus wrote:
>> Bill Noble wrote:
>>> just a warning to those who migrate to Win7 (which I did yesterday) -
>>> there is no email reader included - MS wants you to use "windows live
>>> mail", which is quite frankly not as nice as outlook express or the
>>> "windows mail" included in Vista - I loaded thunderbird, and I don't
>>> like it very much either - I wonder if this was really an anti-trust
>>> thing, or if it was driven by security - if the former, it's worth
>>> some hacking to see if the older program will work in Win7, if the
>>> latter, it is not.
>>>
>>> thoughts?
>>
Microsoft Lookout and Lookout Express are best suited for installing and
spreading Virus' trojans, worms, and malware. Other than that, I can't
think of any good reason to use either one. I am currently using
Thunderbird, but have used Pan in the past and liked it OK.
Scott M.
sidejobscooter
>
> Oh, and just FYI, there is apparently no photoeditor included either -
> they want you to DL the MS Live thingie which is huge - and then you get
> back to the photo editor that had been in Vista - grrrr. all I want to
> do is crop and adjust brightness/contrast - I don't want to "publish",
> or share, or blog or any of that stuff.....
>
Have you tried GIMP for Photo Editing? It is a free download.
Scott M.
Bill Noble
"sidejobscooter" <jsmc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:vgoFm.49001$Lw1....@newsfe03.iad...
not recently - but I am astounded that those who think that MS products are
not to be trusted, but will immediately download a free application of
unknowable trust.
I did find an application hiding on the system that seems to edit photos
fine for my needs, the issue was that the upgrade saved settings that had
the "edit" function pointing off to a different app that does not exist.
for those who dislike MS apps - that's fine - so far I've found that many of
them meet my needs, so it isn't all that helpful to tell me that you think
MS is scum or that you think I'm stupid for liking them - the polite thing
in that case would be to refrain from responding.
Mike Coslo
>
>
> "sidejobscooter" <jsmc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:vgoFm.49001$Lw1....@newsfe03.iad...
>> Bill Noble wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Oh, and just FYI, there is apparently no photoeditor included either
>>> - they want you to DL the MS Live thingie which is huge - and then
>>> you get back to the photo editor that had been in Vista - grrrr. all
>>> I want to do is crop and adjust brightness/contrast - I don't want to
>>> "publish", or share, or blog or any of that stuff.....
>>>
>> Have you tried GIMP for Photo Editing? It is a free download.
>>
>> Scott M.
>
> not recently - but I am astounded that those who think that MS products
> are not to be trusted, but will immediately download a free application
> of unknowable trust.
The issue is not that either M$ or the freeware is the problem. The
problem is that the M$ software is so easy to compromise.
And the old canard that the M$ software is no more vulnerable than other
software - it's just more popular, is a canard. There are millions of
Macs and Linux boxes that if they were as vulnerable, would give nice
platforms for DOS attacks and virus spreading. There is a common thread
in so many Virus softwares. They are spread using M$ products.
> for those who dislike MS apps - that's fine - so far I've found that
> many of them meet my needs, so it isn't all that helpful to tell me that
> you think MS is scum or that you think I'm stupid for liking them - the
> polite thing in that case would be to refrain from responding.
Meh! You may be a lost cause, others might be able to be helped. Or
should we rename the thread to Microsoft only newsreaders? Then the
answer is pretty simple.
- Mike -
Charlie Carothers
I agree. I've not used IE for years except for a few sites that won't
play nice with Firefox. After quite a hassle with an "Account Name" it
wanted I finally got TBird to work with newsgroups (using
eternal-september) just a few minutes ago. Email was a breeze to get
working. I'm not impressed though with the background color, font
selection, color etc. display options; it strikes me as very OE-like in
fact in its limitations. Plus, I happen to like bold white text on a
dark blue background, especially on the LCD display on this laptop.
Mostly it works, but certain emails just seem to ignore my settings.
Later,
Charlie Carothers
D. Peter Maus
>> products are not to be trusted, but will immediately download a free
>> application of unknowable trust.
Thunderbird is not an app of unknowable trust. It is a product
of Mozilla Foundation. Mozilla Foundation was formed by the code
writers and the passionate few surviving the collapse of Netscape.
Their products come with a significant pedigree.
Registered User
>Bill Noble wrote:
>>
>>
>> "sidejobscooter" <jsmc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:vgoFm.49001$Lw1....@newsfe03.iad...
>>> Bill Noble wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Oh, and just FYI, there is apparently no photoeditor included either
>>>> - they want you to DL the MS Live thingie which is huge - and then
>>>> you get back to the photo editor that had been in Vista - grrrr. all
>>>> I want to do is crop and adjust brightness/contrast - I don't want to
>>>> "publish", or share, or blog or any of that stuff.....
>>>>
>>> Have you tried GIMP for Photo Editing? It is a free download.
>>>
>>> Scott M.
>>
>> not recently - but I am astounded that those who think that MS products
>> are not to be trusted, but will immediately download a free application
>> of unknowable trust.
>
>The issue is not that either M$ or the freeware is the problem. The
>problem is that the M$ software is so easy to compromise.
>
My experience does not support this. If finger-pointing is to be done
save fingers for both users and third-party software providers. Poorly
managed systems and poorly designed/written software have been and
remain major factors. Stupid user tricks can be found at all skill
levels. Adobe might rate its own finger.
>And the old canard that the M$ software is no more vulnerable than other
>software - it's just more popular, is a canard.
The size of the target audience is indeed a factor. As with many
things the size of the potential market is directly related to the
potential size of return.
>There are millions of
>Macs and Linux boxes that if they were as vulnerable, would give nice
>platforms for DOS attacks and virus spreading. There is a common thread
>in so many Virus softwares. They are spread using M$ products.
>
Macs certainly have their issues. Last month 47 critical fixes were
issued for the Mac, iPhone and QuickTime media player. One of the
issues was Apple had bundled a vulnerable version of Flash with Snow
Leopard. As a result, Mac users who upgraded their operating system
would be left exposed to Adobe Flash-based attacks - even if they had
previously kept up to date with patches.
Linux is a bit of a different animal. Each installation is a
finger-print on a finger-print. All the Linux variants can't be lumped
together as a common target for an exploit. This doesn't mean there
are no common vulnerabilities. The Linux OOB installation (pick any
flavor) of sendmail presents well-known vulnerabilities.
>
>> for those who dislike MS apps - that's fine - so far I've found that
>> many of them meet my needs, so it isn't all that helpful to tell me that
>> you think MS is scum or that you think I'm stupid for liking them - the
>> polite thing in that case would be to refrain from responding.
>
>Meh! You may be a lost cause, others might be able to be helped.
Or possibly evangelized to if you didn't post using Thunderbird over
Windows. If "M$ software is so easy to compromise" why do you still
use it?
Every tool has its strong points and its weak points. It is a matter
of choosing the right tool for the job and knowing how best to use the
tool. Nothing is perfect and one-size-fits-all really means
fits-no-one-very-well. Uneducated users and those who fail to properly
operate and maintain their tools present the real risk.
Bill Noble
of other sharware/freeware.
I am not going to defend ms, but if you believe that using snowleopard makes
you immune to attack, then you'd best not have anything worth attacking -
the serious exploits are aimed at industrial espionage, not at gathering one
credit card number off of your home machine - a rant about security will
take us seriously off topic - I guess I just won't waste your time here
looking for a solution
"D. Peter Maus" <DPete...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:hc60hi$c3b$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
sidejobscooter
>
>
> "sidejobscooter" <jsmc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:vgoFm.49001$Lw1....@newsfe03.iad...
>> Bill Noble wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Oh, and just FYI, there is apparently no photoeditor included either
>>> - they want you to DL the MS Live thingie which is huge - and then
>>> you get back to the photo editor that had been in Vista - grrrr. all
>>> I want to do is crop and adjust brightness/contrast - I don't want to
>>> "publish", or share, or blog or any of that stuff.....
>>>
>> Have you tried GIMP for Photo Editing? It is a free download.
>>
>> Scott M.
>
> not recently - but I am astounded that those who think that MS products
> are not to be trusted, but will immediately download a free application
> of unknowable trust.
Hi Bill,
Sorry I have been away on a family emergency and was not able to respond
sooner. Since I am a Linux user, I typically download my software from
secure software repositories, so they are considered relatively safe. If
I were downloading for a Windows box I would make sure I downloaded from
a trusted source such as gimp.org. Gimp has been around for a while so
it should be pretty easy to do some research and verify that it is not
spyware or adware. It is certainly safer than downloading cracked
commercial software from torrent sites.
>
> for those who dislike MS apps - that's fine - so far I've found that
> many of them meet my needs, so it isn't all that helpful to tell me that
> you think MS is scum or that you think I'm stupid for liking them - the
> polite thing in that case would be to refrain from responding.
Bill,
I never said that MS was scum or that I hate MS, although I do think
some of their business practices are rather questionable, but that is
off topic and beyond the scope of this reply. I like MS Visio and their
Office Products other than Outlook. I simply think there are far better
alternatives than Outlook and Outlook Express. Both products have some
serious security problems.
I don't think I implied you are stupid for liking those products. As a
matter of fact, I tend to enjoy your post here more than most others as
I find you to be thoughtful and polite. I was simply sharing my thoughts
on how to solve your problem and my distaste for the above mentioned
products. Like any other suggestion, you can take it or leave it. It's
your choice.
Believe it or not, there are lots of developers that enjoy the creative
process of building something nice and useful and sharing it with others
at no charge. There still are folks out there with altruistic motives. I
have nothing to gain by pointing you to a free alternative. As I said,
the choice is your. Commercial products have a profit motive behind them
(I am not opposed to profit) and those who recommend them may or may not
have your best interest at heart.
Good luck with your quest for a newsreader and photo editor that meet
your needs. Keep us posted on what you find.
Scott M.
D. Peter Maus
> true enough, and I was not questioning T-bird, nor firefox, but the
> myriad of other sharware/freeware.
>
> I am not going to defend ms, but if you believe that using snowleopard
> makes you immune to attack, then you'd best not have anything worth
> attacking - the serious exploits are aimed at industrial espionage, not
> at gathering one credit card number off of your home machine - a rant
> about security will take us seriously off topic - I guess I just won't
> waste your time here looking for a solution
For the record, I'm with you on the Mac security issue. I've been
saying for years that Mac security is, at best temporary. At worst
illusory. That for the time being there are only two Mac viruses in
the wild, and those for Tiger. But they must be installed and
operated manually in order to work.
That doesn't mean Mac is immune. And proof of concept code has
demonstrated that viruses for UNIX embed deeper and do more damage
than many Windows viruses.
Anti-virus software was, in fact, invented to protect Macs from
assault.
For these reasons, I do run anti virus software and a separate
firewall, both hardware and software.
Mac/UNIX O/S's are less easily exploited than Windows. And more
readily patched when exploits are uncovered.
That said, the biggest security hole on Mac in recent months came
through Firefox.
All told, Mozilla products are more conscientiously supported,
and better built than IE or OE, and are more configurable. Though
there is a learning curve.
T-bird is still a great choice for mail/news.
Michael A. Terrell
I still use Netscape 4.78 for Win 95, even though I run a different
OS.
--
The movie 'Deliverance' isn't a documentary!
D. Peter Maus
I've got an IBM 560e running Win 98SE, with 4.78 on it.
Which OS are you running it on?
Michael A. Terrell
XP, on this computer. It's on at least three XP computers, a couple
with ME, and should still be on the Win 95 PC I first went online with.
It's still on the hard drive of the Compaq Win 98 SE that died under
warranty, but they refused to do anything about. It was the first
motherboard I ran into with the substandard Chinese electrolytics. It
would reboot constantly, so they wanted to know if the video cable was
plugged in all the way. Then they told me to back up all my files
without opening the case, then take it to the closest Radio Shack so it
could be taken to their closest service center. I bought a new
eMachines 733 MHz computer, pulled the drive from the Compaq, and copied
everything over to the ME based computer.
Bill Noble
will do what I want and I like the user interface - thanks
"sidejobscooter" <jsmc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:vgoFm.49001$Lw1....@newsfe03.iad...
Jeffrey Scott McAuley
> ok, DL'd GIMP - looks good - a bit "heavier duty" than I really need,
> but it will do what I want and I like the user interface - thanks
>
If you are accustomed to using PhotoShop you may find this link interesting:
http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2009/04/03/8-handy-tweaks-to-make-gimp-replace-photoshop/
Best regards,
Scott M
Carter
> XP, on this computer. It's on at least three XP computers, a couple
> with ME, and should still be on the Win 95 PC I first went online with.
> It's still on the hard drive of the Compaq Win 98 SE that died under
> warranty, but they refused to do anything about. It was the first
> motherboard I ran into with the substandard Chinese electrolytics. It
> would reboot constantly, so they wanted to know if the video cable was
> plugged in all the way. Then they told me to back up all my files
> without opening the case, then take it to the closest Radio Shack so it
> could be taken to their closest service center. I bought a new
> eMachines 733 MHz computer, pulled the drive from the Compaq, and copied
> everything over to the ME based computer.
Interesting...I thought that ME had more than its share of problems --
sort of the 'Vista' of its day.
D. Peter Maus
Depended on the mobo. Gateway Me machines were pretty terrible. I
was forever being called out to repair one. Same machine, at least
once a month.
Some, though were no problem. I eventually convinced Gateway
owners I was working with, to swap boards for ASUS mobos, and go
with an OEM version of Me instead of the Gateway co-branded version.
(It was far cheaper than having me out once a month.)
Most all problems went away.
Me could be pretty terrible. Then, again, it could work well
under some circumstances.
maa...@wf.dd.invalid
Also, download sites such as sourceforge.net (more than just a download
site) and download.com should be considered trusted sources. For me it's
important that software works well and doesn't cost too much. I use
Micorsoft Windows, mainly because I'm used to it and have to be able to
look things up for customers. For viewing and image editing, I used to use
MS-Office Photo editor, but that was discontinued. When looking for an
alternative, I found Irfanview and never looked back. I mail and post from
a linux server. It has worked and will continue to work way better for me
than using a MS product. I never ever caught a virus through mail. As a
browser, I use Opera. A product from a reputable commercial company. Just
because it works better for me then IE or Firefox.
--
Met vriendelijke groet,
Maarten Bakker.
maa...@wf.dd.invalid
> Every tool has its strong points and its weak points. It is a matter
> of choosing the right tool for the job and knowing how best to use the
> tool. Nothing is perfect and one-size-fits-all really means
> fits-no-one-very-well. Uneducated users and those who fail to properly
> operate and maintain their tools present the real risk.
Some tools are better suited to uneducated users than other tools.
Michael A. Terrell
I still use the original install, and it has survived five
motherboards. I think the big problem was people who didn't know what
they were doing. They are the type that puts the latest OS on an older
system it doesn't support, don't upgrade the RAM when doing the change,
and don't believe in anti virus or anti spyware software. Then they
refuse to do the security updates.
I have several junk computers that people have installed windows XP
on, some shipped with Win 95. The Motherboards won't support more than
128 MB of RAM, and the CPUs are under 733 MHz. Real dogs, but fun to
watch people get frustrated when they claim that they can use 'Any
computer with XP that will boot!' One takes over 15 minutes to boot. ;-)
Scott W. Harvey
> ok, DL'd GIMP - looks good - a bit "heavier duty" than I really need,
> but it will do what I want and I like the user interface - thanks
>
GIMP is quite good, especially for the price :-). Most casual graphics
manipulators will never need anything more.
-Scott
Scott W. Harvey
>
> Interesting...I thought that ME had more than its share of problems --
> sort of the 'Vista' of its day.
>
>
Yep, ME and Vista have the same function....they were "stopgaps" to
satisfy people's yearning for a new operating system during delays in
developing a good, stable Operating System. ME-was the stopgap between
Windows 98 and XP. Vista was the stopgap between XP and Windows 7. Both
were pretty awful but were followed by very good and highly stable OS
versions. (Yes, Windows 7 has only been out for a few days but it is so
awesome that it's hard to believe it comes from Microsoft)
-Scott
Scott W. Harvey
>
> I still use the original install, and it has survived five
> motherboards. I think the big problem was people who didn't know what
> they were doing. They are the type that puts the latest OS on an older
> system it doesn't support, don't upgrade the RAM when doing the change,
> and don't believe in anti virus or anti spyware software. Then they
> refuse to do the security updates.
>
> I have several junk computers that people have installed windows XP
> on, some shipped with Win 95. The Motherboards won't support more than
> 128 MB of RAM, and the CPUs are under 733 MHz. Real dogs, but fun to
> watch people get frustrated when they claim that they can use 'Any
> computer with XP that will boot!' One takes over 15 minutes to boot. ;-)
>
>
What drives me crazy is that the updates cause the OS to use more and
more RAM. 512MB was quite adequate for a 2002-era Windows XP
installation, by 2007 the same computer needed 2GB of RAM just to stay
afloat with the same OS.
-Scott
Michael A. Terrell
How else are you going to run more software at the same time? I have
1.5 GB of RAM in this Dell I repaired. It runs ok with 1.5 GB. It had
512 MB and the other GB was left over from an upgrade to a computer at a
friend's business. It has four DDR2 slots, unlike some other OEM
motherboards.
Bill M
> "Scott W. Harvey" wrote:
>> installation, by 2007 the same computer needed 2GB of RAM just to stay
>> afloat with the same OS.
>
>
> How else are you going to run more software at the same time? I have
> 1.5 GB of RAM in this Dell I repaired. It runs ok with 1.5 GB. It had
> 512 MB and the other GB was left over from an upgrade to a computer at a
> friend's business. It has four DDR2 slots, unlike some other OEM
> motherboards.
>
>
It might be a reach to blame the OS for needing RAM numbers like 2GB.
But Michael hits the target when he suggests "How else are you going to
run more software at the same time"
We keep expecting our machines to do more and more and there is indeed a
tipping point. We tend to blame the OS or those hungry applications
individually. It is, in fact, a culmination of all of them.
My current Dell (2004 vintage, Win XP) with 1.24 of RAM (no dual headers
or twin pipes) is like a rocket. I recently reloaded it from scratch
because it had slogged down to sloth-speed from all the crap I had
subjected it to over the past five years.
I pity the poor user with 256k RAM and dialup. Things will start
choking up and before long the whole computer is jizzed up.
CF
> Depended on the mobo. Gateway Me machines were pretty terrible. I was
> forever being called out to repair one. Same machine, at least once a
> month.
>
> Some, though were no problem. I eventually convinced Gateway owners I
> was working with, to swap boards for ASUS mobos, and go with an OEM
> version of Me instead of the Gateway co-branded version. (It was far
> cheaper than having me out once a month.)
>
> Most all problems went away.
>
> Me could be pretty terrible. Then, again, it could work well under
> some circumstances.
What about an HP that came with ME? I bought two: one for my daughter
and one for my son, both the same. She still has the ME on it and it
seems to work well, she is just afraid to go on the Internet with it,
virus, malware, etc. She only wants to keep it for the copy of Office
that I got for her. Is there any hope for her keeping ME?
D. Peter Maus
There's no reason she can't use Me. If it's working for her,
there's no reason she can't stay with it. It's risky, but not
impossible to manage.
That said, Me technology is pretty long in the tooth. Exploits
have been found that are no longer patched, and exploits that may be
avoided by running more contemporary software, are off the table,
because many of them won't run under Me.
But decent A/V, anti-Spyware, and a good firewall, and a little
care on the web, she should be able to use Me until she's sick of it.
I have a colleague in Delaware still running 98SE, with no
intention of changing. Of course he keeps nothing of value on his
machine, and does no on-line purchasing, but for general surfing,
he's happy.
Michael A. Terrell
People keep wanting bigger monitors with higher resolution, too. Video
shares memory with the computer, so you can be using close to a GB of
RAM just for high end video. I saw a high end video card with 896 MB of
RAM on the video card.
Scott W. Harvey
MS stopped supporting ME in 2006. That means no security updates or
service packs will ever be released for it again. Most anti-virus
software has ceased support of any Win9x OSes. The latest versions of
Flash Player probably won't work so that may mean no YouTube.
So as I see it, she has two choices:
She can use it as is on the net for stuff that isn't likely to
compromise her life. No shopping on-line with credit cards, no filling
out forms with personal information, etc. To be absolutely safe. The
system itself probably will work as fast with ME loaded on it as a
system 5 years newer with XP loaded on it, but it will not be as stable.
OR
She can download and burn a Linux Live CD that is old enough to run on
her hardware, and use that when she wants to access the net. Since the
CD cannot be altered and doesn't touch the hard drive, the chances of
the system catching a virus or malware from surfing are virtually nullified.
I still have a laptop from 1999 that has win98 loaded on it. Its
performance is quite good for such an old POS. It's not secure or stable
by modern standards but there is less bloat bogging the system down.
-Scott
Registered User
The hardware, specifically the processor, memory and video card, can
play a factor. This is especially true with a broadband connection and
resource intensive content.
>OR
>
>She can download and burn a Linux Live CD that is old enough to run on
>her hardware, and use that when she wants to access the net. Since the
>CD cannot be altered and doesn't touch the hard drive, the chances of
>the system catching a virus or malware from surfing are virtually nullified.
>
There are some drawbacks to this scheme. Being locked in can be both a
positive and a negative. Simple functionality such as book marking
websites is unavailable w/o serialization. Any personalized settings
will be lost when the box is powered down.
>I still have a laptop from 1999 that has win98 loaded on it. Its
>performance is quite good for such an old POS. It's not secure or stable
>by modern standards but there is less bloat bogging the system down.
>
I have a 1994-vintage P90 running W95 OSR2. At the time it was a top
of the line laptop w/ a color LCD screen and maxed w/32M of RAM. Today
it's just a curio and remains the most expensive computer I've ever
purchased excluding purposed servers.
Computers are now as inexpensive as they've ever been. A quality BTO
32-bit desktop can be had for under $600. Indus Technologies
http://www.industechnologies.com carries SATA switches. For about $400
(1 switch and 3 additional HDDs) that desktop can become 'four'
computers each with its own C: drive. I have an $800 BTO box and can
choose between 64-bit versions of Win 7, Vista, XP and W2008 server.
Before they went TU Trios produced similar switches for IDE-based
systems.
Bill Noble
"Bill M" <radio...@geeeemail.com> wrote in message
news:hce2k...@news1.newsguy.com...
> Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>> "Scott W. Harvey" wrote:
>
snip
>
> My current Dell (2004 vintage, Win XP) with 1.24 of RAM (no dual headers
> or twin pipes) is like a rocket. I recently reloaded it from scratch
> because it had slogged down to sloth-speed from all the crap I had
> subjected it to over the past five years.
>
> I pity the poor user with 256k RAM and dialup. Things will start choking
> up and before long the whole computer is jizzed up.
this reminds me - I have a compaq Pentium 2 - I was going to use it to feed
video to a TV but I didn't - before I scrap or toss it (It has win XP and
all updates on a fresh load) - anyone want it? I've learned not to give
stuff away for free, but this is a cheap item - or anyone want a part of it?
I just hate to toss perfectly good working stuff, but you just can't keep
everything
Scott W. Harvey
>
> this reminds me - I have a compaq Pentium 2 - I was going to use it to
> feed video to a TV but I didn't - before I scrap or toss it (It has win
> XP and all updates on a fresh load) - anyone want it? I've learned not
> to give stuff away for free, but this is a cheap item - or anyone want a
> part of it? I just hate to toss perfectly good working stuff, but you
> just can't keep everything
A pentium II with XP? ugggggggh.
I'm typing this on an XP-equipped pentium III with 512MB of RAM. It's
only borderline acceptable performance-wise. Thunderbird and Firefox
running simultaneously turns it into a pokey little puppy.
I would imagine a PII with XP being the kind of internet experience
where it doesn't matter if you have broadband or not, you are still
going to have a coffee and donut while waiting for web pages to load
regardless of connection speed.
-Scott
Bill M
> Bill Noble wrote:
>
>>
>> this reminds me - I have a compaq Pentium 2 - I was going to use it to
>> feed video to a TV but I didn't - before I scrap or toss it (It has
>> anyone want a part of it? I just hate to toss perfectly good working
>> stuff, but you just can't keep everything
>
> A pentium II with XP? ugggggggh.
>
> I'm typing this on an XP-equipped pentium III with 512MB of RAM. It's
> only borderline acceptable performance-wise. Thunderbird and Firefox
> running simultaneously turns it into a pokey little puppy.
Pshaw. I suppose there's some Monday Morning Quarterbacking going on in
such an evaluation but in 'the day' there was nothing at all wrong with
that combination.
Bill Noble
"Bill M" <radio...@geeeemail.com> wrote in message
news:hcj58...@news3.newsguy.com...
it's not bad for basic browsing, but it can't keep up with full screen
video, which is what I was going to use it for, even at the low resolution
of a TV set - but the XP part isn't a problem - oh, it's a Compaq branded
computer, by the way.
CF
old machine? She has 256megs of ram. Knoppic 6.1?
I heard of Puppy, but she is not that computer savvy to work with
something that is too minimal.
CF
What zip code are you located in? I run a 1992 IBM PS/2 9556 with
16megs of ram/ 486SLC/2. OS/2 runs like a champ on it, along with
PC-DOS. I am in 33455.
CF
racehorse. Put in a 128meg video card, and YouTube and streaming videos
play very well. Of course, I wish that I could upgrade the ram to 1gig,
but the BIOS is limited!
Bill Noble
"CF" <C...@example.invalid> wrote in message
news:7ZgHm.109184$ua.1...@en-nntp-05.dc1.easynews.com...
> Bill Noble wrote:
>>
>> this reminds me - I have a compaq Pentium 2 - I was going to use it to
>> feed video to a TV but I didn't - before I scrap or toss it (It has win
>> XP and all updates on a fresh load) - anyone want it? I've learned not
>> to give stuff away for free, but this is a cheap item - or anyone want a
>> part of it? I just hate to toss perfectly good working stuff, but you
>> just can't keep everything
> Bill,
> What zip code are you located in? I run a 1992 IBM PS/2 9556 with 16megs
> of ram/ 486SLC/2. OS/2 runs like a champ on it, along with PC-DOS. I am
> in 33455.
aaah, I'm pretty far from you - off on the left coast near Los Angeles - I'd
be happy to ship, but it probably isn't worth the cost of postage. I also
saved a Pentium motherboard with RAM and discarded the case - that might be
cheap enough to ship that it's almost worth it. - saved the HD and stuff
too. It's hard to maintain a reasonable balance between "good stuff that
really shouldn't be thrown out" and "WTF - I can't move around here any more
and I can't find anything" -
Bill Noble
>>
>>
>> this reminds me - I have a compaq Pentium 2 - I was going to use it to
>> feed video to a TV but I didn't - before I scrap or toss it (It has win
>> XP and all updates on a fresh load) - anyone want it? I've learned not
>> to give stuff away for free, but this is a cheap item - or anyone want a
>> part of it? I just hate to toss perfectly good working stuff, but you
>> just can't keep everything
> Bill,
> What zip code are you located in? I run a 1992 IBM PS/2 9556 with 16megs
> of ram/ 486SLC/2. OS/2 runs like a champ on it, along with PC-DOS. I am
> in 33455.
one more thing this reminded me of - I have a pile of old PLI drives and
media - from back when these were daisy chained off the back of Mac SE
computers to make removable storage - 40 and 80 meg cartridges - presumably
everything works - we moved on in technology and these were surplus to our
needs. - I think I have 3 or 4 drives left in external SCSI enclosures and
one bare drive that went into a PC (untested, unknown condition) and a pile
of media about 2 feet high. The SCSI enclosures are still worth a little,
but the rest is not worth much - if you can use some of this, drop me a note
in the usual way
Michael Coslo
> On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 21:01:53 -0400, Mike Coslo <mj...@psu.edu> wrote:
>
>> Bill Noble wrote:
>>>
>>> "sidejobscooter" <jsmc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>> news:vgoFm.49001$Lw1....@newsfe03.iad...
>>>> Bill Noble wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Oh, and just FYI, there is apparently no photoeditor included either
>>>>> - they want you to DL the MS Live thingie which is huge - and then
>>>>> you get back to the photo editor that had been in Vista - grrrr. all
>>>>> I want to do is crop and adjust brightness/contrast - I don't want to
>>>>> "publish", or share, or blog or any of that stuff.....
>>>>>
>>>> Have you tried GIMP for Photo Editing? It is a free download.
>>>>
>>>> Scott M.
>>> not recently - but I am astounded that those who think that MS products
>>> of unknowable trust.
>> problem is that the M$ software is so easy to compromise.
>>
> My experience does not support this. If finger-pointing is to be done
> save fingers for both users and third-party software providers. Poorly
> managed systems and poorly designed/written software have been and
> remain major factors. Stupid user tricks can be found at all skill
> levels. Adobe might rate its own finger.
Perhap I am wrong, but I fix quite a few Computers that are badly
bollixed. There is a common thread between them all. M$ browsers or
mailreaders.
I have yet to repair a OSX, Linux, and only enough Firefox T-Bird setups
to prove the rule.
Been computin' since mainframes.
>> And the old canard that the M$ software is no more vulnerable than other
>> software - it's just more popular, is a canard.
> The size of the target audience is indeed a factor. As with many
> things the size of the potential market is directly related to the
> potential size of return.
>
>> There are millions of
>> Macs and Linux boxes that if they were as vulnerable, would give nice
>> platforms for DOS attacks and virus spreading. There is a common thread
>> in so many Virus softwares. They are spread using M$ products.
>>
> Macs certainly have their issues. Last month 47 critical fixes were
> issued for the Mac, iPhone and QuickTime media player.
> One of the
> issues was Apple had bundled a vulnerable version of Flash with Snow
> Leopard.
If you want to make Adobe problems a
Mac problem, Tell us about the M$ OS's issues with them also. My Vista
machines don't even want me to run some Adobe Apps.
> As a result, Mac users who upgraded their operating system
> would be left exposed to Adobe Flash-based attacks - even if they had
> previously kept up to date with patches.
Wow. Fortunately that has never ever happened with *any* updates that
Microsoft put out. One of the major headaches of my job is to go around
fixing the computers the morning after Patch Tuesday. The good news is
that they are secure - the bad news is that they don't work any more and
that is the reason that they are secure.
> Linux is a bit of a different animal. Each installation is a
> finger-print on a finger-print. All the Linux variants can't be lumped
> together as a common target for an exploit.
Respectfully, did that rationale come from "Friends of Microsoft?"
Even if it is the truth, that is double plusgood. Maybe there is
something to be learned from it.
>>> for those who dislike MS apps - that's fine - so far I've found that
>>> many of them meet my needs, so it isn't all that helpful to tell me that
>>> you think MS is scum or that you think I'm stupid for liking them - the
>>> polite thing in that case would be to refrain from responding.
>> Meh! You may be a lost cause, others might be able to be helped.
> Or possibly evangelized to if you didn't post using Thunderbird over
> Windows. If "M$ software is so easy to compromise" why do you still
> use it?
>
> Every tool has its strong points and its weak points. It is a matter
> of choosing the right tool for the job and knowing how best to use the
> tool. Nothing is perfect and one-size-fits-all really means
> fits-no-one-very-well. Uneducated users and those who fail to properly
> operate and maintain their tools present the real risk.
Sure. And respectfully, sometime the best PC for the job is a Mac.
I use all three systems heavily. I spend most of my computer support
time fixing M$ boxes. For my own work, I use mostly the Mac. It's been
months since I've worked on a Mac box. If it is a bad system for you,
fine. Don't use it, some times I think that M$ users have this thing
about comfort in numbers. But I've found that most people who don't like
OSX haven't even tried using it.
Michael Coslo
> true enough, and I was not questioning T-bird, nor firefox, but the
> myriad of other sharware/freeware.
>
> I am not going to defend ms, but if you believe that using snowleopard
> makes you immune to attack, then you'd best not have anything worth
> attacking - the serious exploits are aimed at industrial espionage, not
> at gathering one credit card number off of your home machine - a rant
> about security will take us seriously off topic - I guess I just won't
> waste your time here looking for a solution
Before I bow out, The real issue isn't us anyhow, no matter what we're
using. It's the companies that have all our info. We've reached the
strange age where we can't get an update on a loved one in the hospital
(privacy issues, ya'know!) yet very often entire registries of patients
are compromised regularly.
- Mike -
Michael Coslo
> On 10/27/09 22:59 , Bill Noble wrote:
>> true enough, and I was not questioning T-bird, nor firefox, but the
>> myriad of other sharware/freeware.
>>
>> I am not going to defend ms, but if you believe that using snowleopard
>> makes you immune to attack, then you'd best not have anything worth
>> attacking - the serious exploits are aimed at industrial espionage, not
>> at gathering one credit card number off of your home machine - a rant
>> about security will take us seriously off topic - I guess I just won't
>> waste your time here looking for a solution
>
> saying for years that Mac security is, at best temporary. At worst
> illusory. That for the time being there are only two Mac viruses in the
> wild, and those for Tiger. But they must be installed and operated
> manually in order to work.
Yup. Mac's are so vulnerable, I'm amazed anyone can actually use one on
the networks.
Let's have a contest. Take a Microsoft computer, and put it on a decent
speednetwork, without any firewall or virus protection. It will be
compromised fairly quickly.
Do the same for a Mac. See which one goes first. Do you know the
majority of Macs are not using *any* protection at all?
Hackers are opportunists. Why are they not compromising a machine that
is running without protection, and is according to some, just as
vulnerable? There are enough of them out there that such an easy exploit
would be a great thing.
> That doesn't mean Mac is immune. And proof of concept code has
> demonstrated that viruses for UNIX embed deeper and do more damage than
> many Windows viruses.
>
> Anti-virus software was, in fact, invented to protect Macs from assault.
Which program was that, and when was it introduced?
> For these reasons, I do run anti virus software and a separate
> firewall, both hardware and software.
If a person is serious about virus protection - and they should be,
they should be running a hardware firewall and proxy server.
- Mike -
D. Peter Maus
MacAfee.
>
>
Registered User
wrote:
>Registered User wrote:
>> On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 21:01:53 -0400, Mike Coslo <mj...@psu.edu> wrote:
>>
- snip -
>> My experience does not support this. If finger-pointing is to be done
>> save fingers for both users and third-party software providers. Poorly
>> managed systems and poorly designed/written software have been and
>> remain major factors. Stupid user tricks can be found at all skill
>> levels. Adobe might rate its own finger.
>
>Perhap I am wrong, but I fix quite a few Computers that are badly
>bollixed. There is a common thread between them all. M$ browsers or
>mailreaders.
>
Another common thread might be each box was likely self-administered
by the user. The skill and knowledge levels of the user must have
something to do with the issues otherwise every user of MS browser and
mail clients would have experienced these problems as well.
This isn't to say MS' code or more precisely anyone's code is perfect,
present company excluded of course ;) A great many exploits are based
upon buffer errors. These generally occur is older, non-OO code where
the affirmative case is always assumed. Today defensive design and
coding should be de facto standards. Unfortunately this is not always
the case especially when projects are calendar-driven.
>I have yet to repair a OSX, Linux, and only enough Firefox T-Bird setups
>to prove the rule.
>
The size of the target market is a massive factor. Smart handheld
devices have quickly attracted the attention of malware purveyors.
Abstractly those devices are just computers in a different
form-factor. If OSX had 90+ per cent market share versus Windows' 7+
percent, would Windows still be the major malware target?
It is not difficult for an un-educated user/administrator to increase
any OS's susceptibility to malicious attacks. Every OS has settings
that can be mis-configured to present security holes. Any user can
download and run unknown or unsolicited code. There are many, many
different stupid user tricks.
Safe, knowledgeable computing is more important than any particular
OS. A healthy dose of skepticism is useful as well. No Virginia, there
is no Adminstrator of the Internet.
>Been computin' since mainframes.
>
PDP-10, Call360/OS, PL/1, Fortran IV, f*ing decks of punch cards...
those were the days and late nights waiting at the I/O desk.
>
- snip -
Bill Noble
>>> Anti-virus software was, in fact, invented to protect Macs from assault.
>>
>> Which program was that, and when was it introduced?
>
>
> MacAfee.
>>
actually not correct - the first anti-virus I am aware of was for the Apple
II but I can't remember its name right now
Bill Noble
"Registered User" <n4...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:2hmue5pngnomsqrir...@4ax.com...
If a user goes searching for "brittany spears nude" and then sees a link to
"download naked lady screensaver" and does it, and then a box pops up saying
"do you want to execute nude screensaver.exe" and then it turns out the user
has a virus, would you blame the OS, or the user?
as for safety of unix, how many of the infected corporate web servers are
running Windows versus Solaris or Linux?
D. Peter Maus
The first public demonstration of virus removal code in the wild was
performed by Bernt Fix in 1987.
AIDSTEST, Dr Solomon, and AntiVir was released in 1988. John MacAfee
incorporated his company in 1987 and his anti-virus products were
specifically targeted to the Macintosh platform.
Bill Noble
"D. Peter Maus" <DPete...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:hcocm6$k43$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
but what was the name of the magic floppy you would load first into an AII
to scan a suspected disk - I may still have my copy somewhere - seems to me
to have been pre 87 by a bit - I'll ask around.
Michael Coslo
<snip>
>> Been computin' since mainframes.
>>
> PDP-10, Call360/OS, PL/1, Fortran IV, f*ing decks of punch cards...
> those were the days and late nights waiting at the I/O desk.
Ackkk, the punch cards. There was one program I worked on that if you
made a mistake - any mistake - it would dump the entire memory core of a
360 to the printer.
It became such a problem (couldn't run the program overnight for one
thing, and a person had to be stationed by the printer and ready to shut
the system down)that I spent way too much of my time going over the
program and punch cards. I had less errors than anyone else on my team,
so guess who was "rewarded" with having to do that penance? I wanted to
rewrite the program itself, but the answer was "we hardly ever use that
program any more - it would be a waste of time to rewrite it" two years
later, it was still barfing for us.
- Mike -
Scott W. Harvey
> AIDSTEST, Dr Solomon, and AntiVir was released in 1988. John MacAfee
> incorporated his company in 1987 and his anti-virus products were
> specifically targeted to the Macintosh platform.
Not true. They were McAfee antivirus products for the PC as well in
those early days. You could actually download them from the company's
bulletin board for free for awhile. I know this for a fact because I
encountered a bug in one early version that they couldn't reproduce on
their own test beds. I actually went over to the house of one of the
founders to demonstrate the symptoms. This was definitely in 1986 or 1987.
-Scott
maa...@wf.dd.invalid
> If a user goes searching for "brittany spears nude" and then sees a link to
> "download naked lady screensaver" and does it, and then a box pops up saying
> "do you want to execute nude screensaver.exe" and then it turns out the user
> has a virus, would you blame the OS, or the user?
Or both. The user clearly isn't very smart or aware, but on the other hand
the OS does play a role. Windows viruses generally manage to come with a
complete rootkit to hide and protect themselves, to gain sufficient rights
to deploy their payload, do their systemwide damage etc., while Linux
viruses don't because that part would be much harder (only dependent on
bugs, that due to the diversity of distributions, lack of presence and
quick fixes are harder to exploit). Only starting with Vista, _some_
improvements were made in this area (UAC), meaning a user now has to click
"OK" one more time before installing a rootkit. On a well administered
system this requires a password, so it might actually help.
> as for safety of unix, how many of the infected corporate web servers are
> running Windows versus Solaris or Linux?
Probably all of them.
--
Met vriendelijke groet,
Maarten Bakker.
Bill Noble
<maa...@wf.dd.invalid> wrote in message
news:4ed8e$4af6bc4a$d4549fe0$22...@news1.tudelft.nl...
this is my point - Unix is not immune, and no matter what MS does, it social
engineering will still get malware installed - if you install stuff you
should not install, it is not the fault of the OS - if it happens without
your knowledge that is different.
Bill M
>
> if you install
> stuff you should not install, it is not the fault of the OS - if it
> happens without your knowledge that is different.
Thats the black and white version of it. We here on the group tend to
be more savvy than the general public when it comes to these things. (I
think)
I recall a few years back when a lady on one of the genealogy groups
that I frequent received one of those emails from "Microsoft" to delete
such and such file and she of course totally hosed her computer. We got
her back going and all was well.
But she got another similar email and did the same thing again!
Everybody gave her a dose of "you're stupid for falling for the same
trick twice" but her response was 'why would Microsoft send me these
emails if they aren't true?' Some people just don't get it.
Bill Noble
"Bill M" <radio...@geeeemail.com> wrote in message
news:hd7r9...@news6.newsguy.com...
Agree. So the question is, is it Microsoft's fault that someone pretends to
be them and tricks some naive user into doing themselves harm? It's like
the cold weather "I dare you to stick your tongue on the flag pole" - is it
the fault of the maker of the jacket the guy was wearing? no.
I blame, in part, the sellers of systems like HP and Dell for not locking
down the system and making a "user" and an "admin" account by default.
Linux run with the same degree of innocence is at least as at risk - you can
see this by all the sites running Apache that are compromised because the
installer left the default passwords in place.
Bill M
>
> Agree. So the question is, is it Microsoft's fault that someone
> pretends to be them and tricks some naive user into doing themselves
> harm? It's like the cold weather "I dare you to stick your tongue on
> the flag pole" - is it the fault of the maker of the jacket the guy was
> wearing? no.
Its an outcome of becoming the big boy in the market. Some people go
for that. Others occupy themselves in bringing down the big boy.
Clearly its not Big Boy's fault but he ultimately gets the blame.
>
> I blame, in part, the sellers of systems like HP and Dell for not
> locking down the system and making a "user" and an "admin" account by
> default. Linux run
You're now talking geek talk to the average consumer. Dell at least has
a 'click this button to put the machine back like it was when you bought
it'. I don't know what more could be done than that when the
ill-educated consumer presumes himself to be smarter than the OS.
maa...@wf.dd.invalid
> Bill Noble wrote:
>> Agree. So the question is, is it Microsoft's fault that someone
>> pretends to be them and tricks some naive user into doing themselves
>> harm? It's like the cold weather "I dare you to stick your tongue on
>> the flag pole" - is it the fault of the maker of the jacket the guy was
>> wearing? no.
> Its an outcome of becoming the big boy in the market. Some people go
> for that. Others occupy themselves in bringing down the big boy.
> Clearly its not Big Boy's fault but he ultimately gets the blame.
As I tried to explain in my previous post (but I think my point went past
you), the stupid users aren't exclusively the ones to blame either.
Windows does have some inherent flaws that make it easier to catch things
and enable those things to do more damage. The introduction of UAC sort
of cures one of those flaws.
Registered User
>
>As I tried to explain in my previous post (but I think my point went past
>you), the stupid users aren't exclusively the ones to blame either.
>Windows does have some inherent flaws that make it easier to catch things
>and enable those things to do more damage. The introduction of UAC sort
>of cures one of those flaws.
UAC's policies are role-based. The intent is to further protect the OS
from stupid-user tricks with the operative word being user. Depending
upon POV the ability of the user to temporarily override current
policy may be good or bad. A more restrictive implementation would
result in better desktop security but would also require more hands-on
administration along with some RTFM.
It tickles me when someone speaks abstractly of Windows' flaws. These
flaws have supposedly been known for years and years. Despite this
common knowledge MS engineers have yet to discover these flaws and
refactor the design/code which are the root of these issues. Why will
no one enumerate a list of these flaws and send it off to Bellevue WA?
No operating system is free of vulnerabilities in a networked world.
Most versions of Linux contain a bug that could allow untrusted users
to gain complete control over the open-source operating system. AIUI
part of the problem is how null pointers are handled. The source code
does check for null but compiler optimization removes that check. The
2.6.32 release candidate of the Linux kernel is said to resolve the
issue.
While we're on the subject of security has your IPhone been RickRolled
yet? Jailbreaking an IPhone w/o changing the root password leaves the
device vulnerable to the RickRolls worm. The payload is only wallpaper
but the source code is readily available. Subsequent versions may not
be so benign. Is this vulnerability an OS flaw or the result of a
stupid-user trick?
maa...@wf.dd.invalid
> On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 09:11:05 +0100, maa...@wf.dd.invalid wrote:
>>As I tried to explain in my previous post (but I think my point went past
>>you), the stupid users aren't exclusively the ones to blame either.
>>Windows does have some inherent flaws that make it easier to catch things
>>and enable those things to do more damage. The introduction of UAC sort
>>of cures one of those flaws.
> UAC's policies are role-based. The intent is to further protect the OS
> from stupid-user tricks with the operative word being user. Depending
> upon POV the ability of the user to temporarily override current
> policy may be good or bad. A more restrictive implementation would
> result in better desktop security but would also require more hands-on
> administration along with some RTFM.
And that's why -on its own- UAC isn't "the holy grail". It's just an
improvement. However it's also a sign that MS is taking security design to
a level that others have had for years. A good thing.
> It tickles me when someone speaks abstractly of Windows' flaws. These
> flaws have supposedly been known for years and years. Despite this
> common knowledge MS engineers have yet to discover these flaws and
> refactor the design/code which are the root of these issues. Why will
> no one enumerate a list of these flaws and send it off to Bellevue WA?
They're basic design features and architectural choices that only get
ironed out partially with every new windows version. MS _is_ aware of
those, and chooses to leave some and fix some, dependent on design and
compatibility issues. In the mean time, the "normal bugs" of the kind that
you can pinpoint and list, get fixed.
> No operating system is free of vulnerabilities in a networked world.
> Most versions of Linux contain a bug that could allow untrusted users
> to gain complete control over the open-source operating system. AIUI
> part of the problem is how null pointers are handled. The source code
> does check for null but compiler optimization removes that check. The
> 2.6.32 release candidate of the Linux kernel is said to resolve the
> issue.
Of course buffer overflows and nullpointer related bugs appear in most
every OS, and are less dependant on OS desing and architecture compared to
the flaws I was previously talking about. However, more often than not, in
a linux environment they're less in number and harder to exploit since
there's so many different versions and variations (kernels, module
combinations) out there, that may not even be machine code compatible
(there's no chance in the world that a binary x64 exploit will ever on a
PPC machine but also it might even fail to run on a different kernel
configuration since the exploit jumps to another address). Severe bugs
that last several kernel versions (such as the one you seem to be
describing, without reference) are rare (in MS products those seem more
prevalent, but they do get fixed as well). Depending on which distribution
you choose you can get medium or tight security. Debian for example has a
tighter testing policy compared to some other brands. There are even linux
distributions that make it nearly impossible to run binary exploits such
as these. The only Windows brand you can get is MS and the various
distributions (home, professional, ultimate) are extremely similar to
eachother, so you might be plain out of luck when encountering a bug.
> While we're on the subject of security has your IPhone been RickRolled
> yet? Jailbreaking an IPhone w/o changing the root password leaves the
> device vulnerable to the RickRolls worm. The payload is only wallpaper
> but the source code is readily available. Subsequent versions may not
> be so benign. Is this vulnerability an OS flaw or the result of a
> stupid-user trick?
It isn't an OS-flaw for the most part, since the users chooses to modify
his or her embedded device in a way that wasn't foreseen and isn't
supported by the manufacturer. Only thing Apple maybe could have done to
prevent this, would have been to _not_ set passwords (no login possible)
instead of standard passwords. That would have been a bit far fetched, and
might break other software. But let's be clear about this:
Modifying an embedded device is something very different from installing a
piece of software on your PC. It compares better to flashing a new engine
mapping into your car, without upgrading other parts and then ruining your
engine.
Anyway, this discussion would be better held in one or more
comp.os.*.advocacy groups.
Jeffrey D Angus
> Anyway, this discussion would be better held in one or more
> comp.os.*.advocacy groups.
Yeah but...We have a couple people here who for what ever
reason insist on constantly flogging the issue repeatedly.
Jeff
--
�Egotism is the anesthetic that dulls the pain of stupidity.�
Frank Leahy, Head coach, Notre Dame 1941-1954
Registered User
>Registered User <n4...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 09:11:05 +0100, maa...@wf.dd.invalid wrote:
>>>As I tried to explain in my previous post (but I think my point went past
>>>you), the stupid users aren't exclusively the ones to blame either.
>>>Windows does have some inherent flaws that make it easier to catch things
>>>and enable those things to do more damage. The introduction of UAC sort
>>>of cures one of those flaws.
>> UAC's policies are role-based. The intent is to further protect the OS
>> from stupid-user tricks with the operative word being user. Depending
>> upon POV the ability of the user to temporarily override current
>> policy may be good or bad. A more restrictive implementation would
>> result in better desktop security but would also require more hands-on
>> administration along with some RTFM.
>
>And that's why -on its own- UAC isn't "the holy grail". It's just an
>improvement. However it's also a sign that MS is taking security design to
>a level that others have had for years. A good thing.
>
Any form of security is only as good as the user who administrates the
system. Any security system loses value if the user doesn't know what
it does and how to best use it for their fingerprint.
>> It tickles me when someone speaks abstractly of Windows' flaws. These
>> flaws have supposedly been known for years and years. Despite this
>> common knowledge MS engineers have yet to discover these flaws and
>> refactor the design/code which are the root of these issues. Why will
>> no one enumerate a list of these flaws and send it off to Bellevue WA?
>
>They're basic design features and architectural choices that only get
>ironed out partially with every new windows version. MS _is_ aware of
>those, and chooses to leave some and fix some, dependent on design and
>compatibility issues. In the mean time, the "normal bugs" of the kind that
>you can pinpoint and list, get fixed.
>
It still sounds like conjecture, almost Area 51-ish.
This goes back to an earlier point I was trying to make in this
thread. Windows-based OS's are targeted because of their numbers and
not simply because these OS's are more vulnerable.
>> While we're on the subject of security has your IPhone been RickRolled
>> yet? Jailbreaking an IPhone w/o changing the root password leaves the
>> device vulnerable to the RickRolls worm. The payload is only wallpaper
>> but the source code is readily available. Subsequent versions may not
>> be so benign. Is this vulnerability an OS flaw or the result of a
>> stupid-user trick?
>
>It isn't an OS-flaw for the most part, since the users chooses to modify
>his or her embedded device in a way that wasn't foreseen and isn't
>supported by the manufacturer. Only thing Apple maybe could have done to
>prevent this, would have been to _not_ set passwords (no login possible)
>instead of standard passwords. That would have been a bit far fetched, and
>might break other software. But let's be clear about this:
>
I see it as a stupid-user trick. The 'it' isn't jail breaking the
device. The user's failure to change the default credentials is the
problem. The "wasn't foreseen and isn't supported' can be applied to
just about any product.
>Modifying an embedded device is something very different from installing a
>piece of software on your PC. It compares better to flashing a new engine
>mapping into your car, without upgrading other parts and then ruining your
>engine.
>
This is a good analogy. Before any task is undertaken both the
requirements and consequences need to be determined. The IPhone SSH
issue occurs because a defacto requirement was not met.
>Anyway, this discussion would be better held in one or more
>comp.os.*.advocacy groups.
Yes and no. Sometimes there is more evangelizing/flaming/trolling than
civil discussion. My only advocacy is that people know and understand
the tools they work with. A good workman never blames his tools and
always chooses the ones most suitable for the task at hand.
D. Peter Maus
> Yes and no. Sometimes there is more evangelizing/flaming/trolling than
> civil discussion. My only advocacy is that people know and understand
> the tools they work with. A good workman never blames his tools and
> always chooses the ones most suitable for the task at hand.
This is one of the most rational, clearly reasoned paragraphs
I've read on USENet in months.
Cut it out.
p
maa...@wf.dd.invalid
> This goes back to an earlier point I was trying to make in this
> thread. Windows-based OS's are targeted because of their numbers and
> not simply because these OS's are more vulnerable.
It seems you don't have a background or education in IT (I do), making
some of the more technical arguments go right past you. I will refrain
from discussing here any further.
> Yes and no. Sometimes there is more evangelizing/flaming/trolling than
> civil discussion. My only advocacy is that people know and understand
> the tools they work with. A good workman never blames his tools and
> always chooses the ones most suitable for the task at hand.
You're right about that, but unfortunately to do that the workman should
understand the tools. Operating Systems might be too complex for that,
making discussion useless.
My apologies to the others for re-doing this discussion.
Bill Noble
news:600ab$4af8aba5$d4549fe0$29...@news1.tudelft.nl...
> Registered User <n4...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
snip
> You're right about that, but unfortunately to do that the workman should
> understand the tools. Operating Systems might be too complex for that,
> making discussion useless.
>
> My apologies to the others for re-doing this discussion.
>
> --
> Met vriendelijke groet,
>
> Maarten Bakker.
for those who care about this issue, see link below for an excellent article
on the subject
Registered User
>Registered User <n4...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> This goes back to an earlier point I was trying to make in this
>> thread. Windows-based OS's are targeted because of their numbers and
>> not simply because these OS's are more vulnerable.
>
>It seems you don't have a background or education in IT (I do), making
>some of the more technical arguments go right past you. I will refrain
>from discussing here any further.
>
Forgive me for not suitably impressed but I read no technical
assessments beyond the obvious i.e. x64 binaries won't run on a PPC.
There was little beyond conjecture including some concerning my IT
background and education.
Information technology is a broad term. There are many who have years
of IT education and experience with little if any understanding of
computer science and what actually happens under the hood. These types
excel at one-dimensional problem solving while failing pattern
recognition.
>> Yes and no. Sometimes there is more evangelizing/flaming/trolling than
>> civil discussion. My only advocacy is that people know and understand
>> the tools they work with. A good workman never blames his tools and
>> always chooses the ones most suitable for the task at hand.
>
>You're right about that, but unfortunately to do that the workman should
>understand the tools. Operating Systems might be too complex for that,
>making discussion useless.
>
For this group OS discussions are both too complex and OT. Even so it
bothers me greatly when blanket statements are made with what appears
to be made with biased objectivity. Those whose proselytize tend to
parrot what they've read and heard, i.e. one reason Vista sucks is the
UAC.
I can take either side in a 'nix/Windows discussion. Questioning a
particular OS' security based upon ring usage works well in separating
the wheat from the chaff. One of things OS/2 got right was using three
rings instead of just rings zero and three.
>My apologies to the others for re-doing this discussion.
For myself as well. Now back to lurking in my own little corner.
Michael Coslo
> Agree. So the question is, is it Microsoft's fault that someone
> pretends to be them and tricks some naive user into doing themselves
> harm?
Depends. I know some people for whom Microsoft can do no wrong. Others
who aren't so enamoured.
Too bad that its not possible for an OS manufacturer to figure out how
to make spoofing updates unpossible......
And that's my problem with the whole issue. Why is the update process
not secure. For crying out loud, they make the OS, and they make the
updates. And for that, I'm going to blame it on both the customer and M$.
- 73 de Mike N3LI -
Michael Coslo
> Bill Noble wrote:
>
>>
>> Agree. So the question is, is it Microsoft's fault that someone
>> pretends to be them and tricks some naive user into doing themselves
>> harm? It's like the cold weather "I dare you to stick your tongue on
>> the flag pole" - is it the fault of the maker of the jacket the guy
>> was wearing? no.
>
>
> Its an outcome of becoming the big boy in the market. Some people go
> for that. Others occupy themselves in bringing down the big boy.
>
> Clearly its not Big Boy's fault but he ultimately gets the blame.
Not so clear to me, and are you seriously trying to say that Micrsoft's
products are just as secure as the other computer types? This isn't a
case of 10 computers versus 5 or one. There are millions of coomputers
running OSX and Linux. Explain why exploiting those computers is not
worhtwhile Especially since the majority of OSX computers are running
barefoot. No protection. Permisssions are a pain, but they sure do help
the system keep it's pants up.
People like to point out whenever a OSX or Linux distro has a security
issue. It's the "Man bites Dog" thing though. Patch Tuesday comes along
every month, and we're just so used to it, we're numb to it.
>> I blame, in part, the sellers of systems like HP and Dell for not
>> locking down the system and making a "user" and an "admin" account by
>> default. Linux run
>
> You're now talking geek talk to the average consumer. Dell at least has
> a 'click this button to put the machine back like it was when you bought
> it'. I don't know what more could be done than that when the
> ill-educated consumer presumes himself to be smarter than the OS.
Blame the victim, eh?
- - Mike -
maa...@wf.dd.invalid
> Information technology is a broad term. There are many who have years
> of IT education and experience with little if any understanding of
> computer science and what actually happens under the hood. These types
> excel at one-dimensional problem solving while failing pattern
> recognition.
By giving the binary difference as a prime example, you have proven my
point of you missing the point. As I said, I won't go into details
anymore, suffice to say that I'm not in the education category you're
describing. Please get a few books about OS architecture before doing any
more advocacy.