Antonio Aparicio wrote:
Ahhh, the security through obscurity myth. But surely statistically
there shold be at least some viruses for OSX by now? Personally I
beleive that it is because OSX is better by design.
Do we have a new troll on our hands or what?
/Henri
I run your suggested google search and did not find anything that was
either bogus or has been addressed/was a minor non issue.
Ahhh, the security through obscurity myth. But surely statistically
there shold be at least some viruses for OSX by now? Personally I
beleive that it is because OSX is
Myself and 19 other guys...
-
I just went through that. Port 25 was blocked by my firewall was their response
(I do not have a firewall). Finally, I got someone who could think for himself.
If the problem is our smtp server, you should be able to connect to another one,
he said. Gave me the addr
D]>
Sent: Monday, May 17, 2004 10:20 PM
Subject: Re: Anyone still using WIndows ME?
No it is not. That is the whole point of why I have argued that
Microsoft Windows is substandard - it is riddled with holes and
weaknesses that are the direct result of the way it was designed.
Antonio
Antonio
On
Oh God, no, not again.
Argh
>Hi Peter, I dont want to get into a flame situation here, but I do not
>think that I have ever heard of OSX being either hacked nor a problem
>for developers. Can you support you statement with an example?
>Certainly
--- Original Message -
From: "Antonio Aparicio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, May 17, 2004 10:20 PM
Subject: Re: Anyone still using WIndows ME?
> No it is not. That is the whole point of why I have argued that
> Microsoft Windows is substan
graywolf wrote:
Interesting comment! I am running Thunderbird for the spam filtering
and the fact I can see all my email accounts at the same time, but I
find it buggy as hell. I have gotten to where I load my email, close
Thunderbird so it save it to disk, then reopen it just so I will not
los
Interesting comment! I am running Thunderbird for the spam filtering and the
fact I can see all my email accounts at the same time, but I find it buggy as
hell. I have gotten to where I load my email, close Thunderbird so it save it to
disk, then reopen it just so I will not lose my mail when it
On Mon, 17 May 2004, Antonio Aparicio wrote:
> John, nobody is bashing anyone. Calm down. We are just discussing the
> merits of one OS over another. They are just tools/machines. Clearly
> virus and spyware are more prevalent on the Windows OS thatn elswhere
> PRECISELY because of the design of th
Well, there are certainly less chance of deliberate security holes.
--
Anders Hultman wrote:
graywolf:
How can any open source operating system be hack proof, except in the
sense that you do not need to hack it as you can just read the source?
Having the source code is like having the blueprints t
Hi,
>>Why is it that programmers always want to blame ordinary
>>people and call them stupid?
> Partly because they are. Ordinary people are not trained in computer
> security like they are trained in locking their home doors and cars,
> and avoiding hot stoves and falling down from ladders and s
No, the key is to not read threads that upset you. Threads are not inflamatory,
only people are. Those who do not want to ever be upset really need to look for
another mailing list. The most interesting thing about this list, at least to
me, is how controversial it can become before it deteriat
ECTED]>
Sent: Monday, May 17, 2004 4:22 PM
Subject: Re: Anyone still using WIndows ME?
Or have debates in which everyone shares the same opinion, and where
nobody really wants to say anything that is going to be different.
Antonio
On 17 May 2004, at 21:57, Christian wrote:
Mark;
The key on this
Amita Guha wrote:
I have a router infront of the network, and thats it. No antivirus
software, no firewalls. Nothing.
And not a single problem for 2 years straight.
Henri, you are obviously a man who likes to live dangerously! ;)
Well, his router serves as a hardware firewall :)
If
Why? I have no interest in changing HW as well as OS at this point in my
life.
see my last line.
Christian
- Original Message -
From: "Antonio Aparicio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Christian,
>
> Try OSX.
>
> Antonio
>
> On 17 May 2004, at 21:07, Christian wrote:
> > ALL OPERATING SYSTEMS S
the F***ing OS
question. Sheesh!
Christian
- Original Message -
From: "Antonio Aparicio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, May 17, 2004 4:22 PM
Subject: Re: Anyone still using WIndows ME?
> Or have debates in which everyone shares the same
> >> I have a router infront of the network, and thats it. No antivirus
> >> software, no firewalls. Nothing.
> >>
> >> And not a single problem for 2 years straight.
> >
> >Henri, you are obviously a man who likes to live dangerously! ;)
>
> Well, his router serves as a hardware firewall :)
> If
- Original Message -
From: "Mark Roberts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, May 17, 2004 3:54 PM
Subject: Re: Anyone still using WIndows ME?
OK, enough arguing! I didn't mean to start such a fuss! ;-)
Anyone willing to risk the wrath of Micros
William, neither of the examples you mention are viruses. One is a
piece of applescript (like a batch file) the other justa non harmfull
file. Niether could self propagate.
Antonio
On 17 May 2004, at 21:28, William Kane wrote:
Antonio,
I hate to correct you on this, but there have been 2 rece
No it is not. That is the whole point of why I have argued that
Microsoft Windows is substandard - it is riddled with holes and
weaknesses that are the direct result of the way it was designed.
Antonio
Antonio
On 17 May 2004, at 21:55, John Francis wrote:
Sure. But, and I repeat, that's nothing
Antonio,
I hate to correct you on this, but there have been 2 recent Mac OSX
viruses/trojans. The first was a file that appeared to be a music
file. When the media file was played through a program (such as
iTunes) nothing bad happened, but when the file was double clicked on,
it popped up
Check out AVG. http://www.grisoft.com/us/us_dwnl_free.php
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Marnie aka Doe :-) I used McAffe at first when it was new on this machine
(under ME), then it expired. So I removed it. I don't like having software on my
machine that insists I BUY an upgrade.
--
graywolf
http:/
Christian wrote:
You know, I've always stayed out of these stupid OT OS bashing threads since
I joined this list 4 years ago. For some dumb reason I feel like getting
involved.
Antonio, what's the alternative? Unix? I've been a Unix (Solaris/Linux)
sys-admin for 6 years. Have I spent hours of a
- Original Message -
From: "Antonio Aparicio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Thats right, viruses and spyware are different, but are both examples
> of the substandard quality evident in the Windows OS, which is where my
> contribution to this thread began.
> Antonio
You know, I've always stayed
Hi,
>>
>>The biggest weakness in the whole setup is the stupidity of users.
>>
> Amen to that.
amen to some of that, but I do not think it is predominantly user
stupidity. Why is it that programmers always want to blame ordinary
people and call them stupid?
Here are my culprits, in descending o
You clearly have no idea what open source is, nor how it is developed.
Antonio
On 17 May 2004, at 20:35, graywolf wrote:
How can any open source operating system be hack proof, except in the
sense that you do not need to hack it as you can just read the source?
Luckily the so called hackers (bein
John, nobody is bashing anyone. Calm down. We are just discussing the
merits of one OS over another. They are just tools/machines. Clearly
virus and spyware are more prevalent on the Windows OS thatn elswhere
PRECISELY because of the design of that OS. To date there have been
Zero, thats right
John Francis wrote:
Thats right, viruses and spyware are different, but are both examples
of the substandard quality evident in the Windows OS, which is where my
contribution to this thread began.
Antonio
Do you think we could take the mindless Microsoft bashing somewhere else,
please?
The m
How can any open source operating system be hack proof, except in the sense that
you do not need to hack it as you can just read the source? Luckily the so
called hackers (being of the old school I do hate this misuse of that term as
used by the media, but I guess there is nothing I can do about
>
> Thats right, viruses and spyware are different, but are both examples
> of the substandard quality evident in the Windows OS, which is where my
> contribution to this thread began.
> Antonio
Do you think we could take the mindless Microsoft bashing somewhere else,
please?
The main reasons
In a message dated 5/17/2004 10:31:15 AM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thats right, viruses and spyware are different, but are both examples
of the substandard quality evident in the Windows OS, which is where my
contribution to this thread began.
Antonio
--
No
Thats right, viruses and spyware are different, but are both examples
of the substandard quality evident in the Windows OS, which is where my
contribution to this thread began.
Antonio
On 17 May 2004, at 19:17, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 5/17/2004 10:07:53 AM Pacific Standard Ti
In a message dated 5/17/2004 10:07:53 AM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Try
tunning some sypware detection software on your machine - you may be
surprised. I know I was and I consider myself a very educated user with
15+ years experience.
Antonio
-
Well, spyware a
"Globally, about 64% of companies were hit by at least one virus in the
past 12 months, up from 53% the year before. In the United States,
viruses stung 69% of companies. Those figures are about four times as
high as the next highest category of security breaches: unauthorized
network entry."
In a message dated 5/17/2004 9:53:53 AM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Not to be argumentative but... I've been using Outlook Express on
various Windows platforms (still use ME on one of my systems and think it's
great!) since '98 and have never had a virus. Never used a Vi
Try telling that to all the banks, governments and offices around the
world (not to mention educational establishments) that have been hit,
and hit hard. There have even been cash machines taken offline! Try
tunning some sypware detection software on your machine - you may be
surprised. I know
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> -
> Not sure, but think it helps if one doesn't use Outlook. Seems most
viruses I
> have heard of come through that. Also helps to not open emails with
> attachments unless you know who they are from (which is just common
se
Frantisek Vlcek wrote:
Win ME is super-slow, super-buggy, super-unstable; super-crappy.
MR> That's pretty much what I've heard.
The way I heard it, it's quite a hybrid. With many things inherited
still from good old Dos and subsequent hybrids like W95/W98, while
some things from the newer versions
In a message dated 5/17/2004 9:04:34 AM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have a router infront of the network, and thats it. No antivirus
software, no firewalls. Nothing.
And not a single problem for 2 years straight.
/Henri
-
Not sure, but think it helps if on
> I have a router infront of the network, and thats it. No antivirus
> software, no firewalls. Nothing.
>
> And not a single problem for 2 years straight.
Henri, you are obviously a man who likes to live dangerously! ;)
Amita
Amita Guha wrote:
I've been running XP for almost a year and a half, I've
never had a virus, never had any problems at all.
Ditto. I'm finding XP to be quite stable. I run 2 firewalls and keep my
antivirus software up to date, take the usual precautions, and I'm fine.
I have a router inf
> > Much worse than Xp - thats an interesting way of putting it! Bug
> > ridden POS. Xp is not much better - in fact as far as virus,
> spyware
> > and the like are concerned it is 1,000 times worse! They should
> have
> > named it VXp for Virus Experience!
> >
>
> Gosh, I've been running XP for
Hi Peter, I dont want to get into a flame situation here, but I do not
think that I have ever heard of OSX being either hacked nor a problem
for developers. Can you support you statement with an example?
Certainly I do not think any OS is totally imune from a determined
hack, but all the inform
Don't kid yourself, OS-X is based on a Unix version that's that's a
hackers wet dream and a developers nightmare.
Cotty wrote:
On 17/5/04, HENRI, discombobulated, offered:
Substandard? Maybe that's the wrong word for it. Windows IS the standard
for operating systems. However crappy it may be,
Not when you realize their main interest is selling support contracts to
corporations.
--
Antonio Aparicio wrote:
What windows software isnt? Its amazing that a company with so so so
much money at its disposal continues to put out such shoddy substandard
products.
Antonio
On 17 May 2004, at 13
Antonio Aparicio wrote:
What windows software isnt? Its amazing that a company with so so so
much money at its disposal continues to put out such shoddy
substandard products.
Well, it's much worse than say, Win Xp.
Substandard? Maybe that's the wrong word for it. Windows IS the standard
for oper
What windows software isnt? Its amazing that a company with so so so
much money at its disposal continues to put out such shoddy substandard
products.
Antonio
On 17 May 2004, at 13:50, Mark Roberts wrote:
Win ME is super-slow, super-buggy, super-unstable; super-crappy
Hi Mark.
I have ME on my onsite computers.They came that way from the photog that sold me his
stuff.So far
only one problem since 2001, July.I run PS 6, AcDc,Corel 7,but no internet.
The problem seemed to fix itself after a day of being shut off,so i'm not sure what
happened there.
Not sure if i
Frantisek Vlcek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>Win ME is super-slow, super-buggy, super-unstable; super-crappy.
>
>MR> That's pretty much what I've heard.
>
>The way I heard it, it's quite a hybrid. With many things inherited
>still from good old Dos and subsequent hybrids like W95/W98, while
>some
Henri Toivonen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>IMHO, Win ME is a complete disaster any way you look at it. If I have to
>use a Win 9X based version i go with Win98SE.
>Otherwise Win2k or WinXP is really the way to go today.
>
>Win ME is super-slow, super-buggy, super-unstable; super-crappy.
That's p
adeup with this one and wanted to upgrade it to XP,
however, that needs some more memory and then I finally ended up in buying
a Dell laptop with XP.
From: Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Anyone still using WIndows ME?
Date:
>>Well, I'm *considering* trying Windows ME on my laptop, because earlier
>>versions of Windows won't run the Pentax Remote Assistant software for
>>the ist-D and my ancient laptop won't run Win2k or later.
>>
HT> IMHO, Win ME is a complete disaster any way you look at it. If I have to
HT> use a Wi
Mark Roberts wrote:
HAR!
Well, I'm *considering* trying Windows ME on my laptop, because earlier
versions of Windows won't run the Pentax Remote Assistant software for
the ist-D and my ancient laptop won't run Win2k or later.
From what I've heard, Windows ME is fine when it works, but when it
enc
Norm Baugher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>I have some technical questions regarding Windows ME. I don't have it
>>and so can't verify a few things. If anyone who has this operating
>>system would be willing to answer some (Pentax-related) questions, I'd
>>appreciate an off-list email.
>>
>No, but
No, but I'm using a Pentax ME Super
Norm
Mark Roberts wrote:
I have some technical questions regarding Windows ME. I don't have it
and so can't verify a few things. If anyone who has this operating
system would be willing to answer some (Pentax-related) questions, I'd
appreciate an off-list email.
101 - 155 of 155 matches
Mail list logo
