|
|
|
timmy
|
 |
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
McAfee Security Center has a cute feature "Privacy Service" that is intended to block ads and popups. Sounds great. Until, this week, I ran into it as a business owner and discovered how naive it is. It took me and my business partner 3 days to find out that it blocks our legitimate urls. OK, bear with me, this needs background:
On http://partnermine.com we serve web pages with images on, and we place those images into directories constructed with hex codes. So valid subdirectories can be (eg) "/c1/" or, in this case "/ad/". They are pretty random in nature and we do it for internal reasons.
McAfee Privacy Policy filters out the entire "img" tag for the picture we serve - a picture our customer pays to receive from us, and a picture McAfee Privacy Service customers pay to block!
We got in touch with McAfee. "Uninstall and reinstall the Privacy Service" they said. OK, I argued, but eventually realised I would get no more "help" until I had done it. And, guess what? Yup. "No change". They will "pass to development"
But what a naive filter that filters out in the first two letters of the word "Advert" as part of a pathname! How more "old tech" can it be? And worse, how many other poor souls worldwide have installed this and have no idea what they are not getting from websites they want to see?
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Its easy Timmy. McAfee dont care. They sell the software, its not returnable, bingo, profit. They could care less if it works right or not. It was put together cheap and quick.
McAfee bought PGP years ago and they havent updated it since. the people who created it have created newer versions. I dislike McAfee, even their virus scan is a waist of money. Norton is far superior and is so much easier to update. Every time I go on line Norton updates itself, and I never know its happening.
I believe in Karma....what you give is what you get returned........
Affirmation........Savage Garden
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
Oh I know. But the point is this post will get picked up by Google 
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ah ha, I see, there is a method in your madness;-D ;-D
I believe in Karma....what you give is what you get returned........
Affirmation........Savage Garden
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Timmy, you naughty, naughty, boy. Hehehehehe. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Norton? Hmm.
It slows even the fastest computer down to a crawl under its default configuration, it begs for cash every year for overpriced "subscriptions" that other suppliers supply for free, and it costs far too much in the first place (compared to other similar programs -- some cost nothing at all).
I have never used McAfee.
Virus scanning is closing the stable door after the horse has bolted: if you have a virus, there is already a serious security problem somewhere down the line. It's usually either bad software or lack of common sense on the operator's part. Historically, there have been so many vulnerabilities in Windows that even if you had a virus scanner installed, running and fully up-to-date, viruses, worms and trojan horses could still creep onto the system before you had a chance to patch it. As for common sense -- computers need maintenance in exactly the same way as a car. You need to keep the software as up-to-date as you can, run a firewall, and not do silly things like opening funny attachments or downloading odd files off the internet, et cetera, et cetera. And, of course, you should run a virus scanner from time to time; but if it is picking up viruses then it's an indication that you are already doing something wrong.
A virus scanner is not a solution; it is an indicator of a problem.
To be honest, if your computer picks up a virus, then the only way to be completely sure that your computer has not been compromised by another party is to reinstall all programs from scratch. Even if you have patched the system so that another one can't get in the same way as it did, removing the virus provdes no guarantee that it hasn't opened up a "back door" somewhere.
Sorry for that slightly off-topic rant against virus scanners.
Deeej
(P.S. I'm not specifically chiding people for using Windows, but people who do use it should be aware that it requires rather more "common sense" than most of the other operating systems around today. Personally, I use Linux; mostly, that's because I find it wastes less of my time.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Linux - isn't that the os which is not yet 'desktop ready'?
No, seriously, Deeej, I agree with you 100%, and use it (SuSE 10.0) 99.9% of the time, even on my 1400x1050 screen and wireless LAN Acer laptop. It's really difficult to understand why still so few people use it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To reviewers, "desktop ready" usually means "so simple, even a dog could use it" (or, alternatively, "it's exactly like Windows"). What they don't take into account is that sometimes Windows's way of doing things is not the fastest at all -- but you have to be prepared to learn how to use the new, more efficient way, to reap any benefit from it. If you know what you are doing, it is much, much faster and more efficient to type in a couple of commands to do something than it is to fiddle around with half a dozen menus and windows to find the command you want.
Out of interest, what desktop do you use? I use icewm (a window manager and taskbar) and rox-filer (a file manager), and they absolutely fly. They each take about half a second to load on my computer. I have used both KDE and Gnome in my time, but I find them slow -- they try and emulate Windows far too closely, with dozens of ways to do the same thing, and whizzy animations that look nice but eat processor cycles like there's no tomorrow. Yes, icewm took me a few minutes to configure a couple of years ago so I could get the fonts looking right, add all my favourite programs as shortcut buttons to the taskbar, and so on -- but now every time I load it up, I save thirty seconds. Plus icewm and rox are far more responsive into the bargain, as they are smaller and geared only to what I want them to do, not 101 things I don't need them to do.
Even if you don't want to use icewm, I seriously recommend rox-filer. It's an unbelievably fast file manager, and it clones a pioneering and innovative British operating system's filer into the bargain. ROX provides a desktop environment as well, but it's probably only of interest to you if you love Risc OS. (I do, in some ways, but I prefer having a conventional taskbar, which icewm provides.)
http://rox.sourceforge.net/desktop/static.html
Deeej
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry Deeej, I run Norton. It monitors the incoming data at the modem and blocks the virus coming in. It never goes past the modem. Im running a 3.8 gig machine and Norton hasnt slowed it down at all. McAfee also charges a fee to renew each year and its more expensive than Norton. the free and cheap ones? Well , you get what you pay for. I also have my own secure tunnel. everything coming in or out of my puter is encrypted, anyone on the outside taps in, all they get is garbage. You know what slows most machines down? windows XP.
I also have a fix it program that monitors the net, for patches and fixes for windows XP as they become available.
love yah Deeej ;-D ;-D
I believe in Karma....what you give is what you get returned........
Affirmation........Savage Garden
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>Sorry Deeej, I run Norton. It monitors the incoming data at the modem and blocks the virus coming in. It never goes past the modem.
Er, um. I know what you mean, but any sort of software (unless you are using some sort of hardware firewall, which I sincerely doubt) has to run on the computer's processor, and where data is being processed by the same processor as runs the rest of the system, there is always the possibility of a buffer overflow or similar coding error which makes the computer vulnerable. Even assuming that Norton will filter out all malicious software effectively.
>Well , you get what you pay for.
Yes, I get what I pay for -- I paid nothing for any of the software on my machine (perfectly legally), and have a system that runs faster and more securely than any using Windows.
>I also have my own secure tunnel. everything coming in or out of my puter is encrypted, anyone on the outside taps in, all they get is garbage.
A secure tunnel to what? You can't have a secure tunnel to everything; for example, to post on this web site you need to break out of the encryption at some stage and submit the request via plain text (HTTP). Unless there is point-to-point encryption, someone can always tap in.
>You know what slows most machines down? windows XP.
Well, I can't deny that!
>I also have a fix it program that monitors the net, for patches and fixes for windows XP as they become available.
As do many people. But Microsoft rarely releases patches pre-emptively -- an exploit can be "in the wild" for months before Microsoft patches it, and all that time your computer is vulnerable.
Deeej
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hey Deeej, I got 11 gigs memory, I dont have a memeory problem. The fix program I have doesnt just depend on Microsoft, it also monitors private sites. A lot of patches are posted there befor Microsoft. Im not sure how this Secure tunnel works in all the ways it does. I can give you the name of the company that offers the service if you like.
I have RedHat on my machine. I love it, unfortunately the programs being written for it arnt even close to what is offered for windows. Im not complaining. I wish they wrote the more popular games to run, but they dont, maybe in the future.
I believe in Karma....what you give is what you get returned........
Affirmation........Savage Garden
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>I got 11 gigs memory
What type of memory would that be? You mean hard disk space? Because it's not the hard disk space Norton Antivirus and co. takes up -- it's RAM and processor time.
If you want to run it, I won't stop you, though -- it does give a certain measure of security. Even on the fastest computer, it will slow it down a bit, though. As long as you're aware of that, I don't mind.
>Im not sure how this Secure tunnel works in all the ways it does. I can give you the name of the company that offers the service if you like.
Brian, I'm afraid that's a recipe for disaster. If you don't know how it works then you won't know its limitations -- and I promise you, there is no encryption system in the whole world without potential security risks -- there may not be theoretical ones, but there are certainly practical ones. I would recommend that you read up on it and find out how it works if you want to be as safe as humanly possible. There's no point in being completely anonymous from a technical point of view if you give your real name, for example, even to someone you think you can trust.
>A lot of patches are posted there befor Microsoft.
That's also a recipe for disaster! I would not install a third-party patch unless it was from a completely trusted person or company. A piece of software that does it for you is just asking for trouble. Someone posts a dodgy piece of software on one of these "private sites" and -- bingo, every single computer running this update utility is compromised. Installing anything without knowing precisely where it came from is dangerous. And though we all like to hate Microsoft, Microsoft is basically the only company who really knows what goes on in Windows under the hood. Other companies can only guess. There's also the problem that if a private patch tries to fix a Microsoft product, then sooner or later when Microsoft gets round to fixing it there will be a conflict, and it could potentially break something.
>I have RedHat on my machine. I love it, unfortunately the programs being written for it arnt even close to what is offered for windows. Im not complaining. I wish they wrote the more popular games to run, but they dont, maybe in the future.
Jolly good (though do remember to keep it up-to-date too -- Linux is not invulnerable). Apart from games, what programs are you not able to get? I don't run games, but there is very little (apart from Avid Xpress Pro and Sibelius) that I can't run under Linux, or find equivalents for.
Deeej
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Deej & all!
I have used ZoneAlarm software firewall with Windows for years with good sucess. I first got Computer Associates's internet security suite with a subscription to Time-Warner's RoadRunner broadband internet service. CA's firewall is a slightly modded ZoneAlarm setup. When that expired i used free ZoneAlarm on a nunber of computers. Now I've purchased ZoneAlarm internet security suite to get the trademark simplicity & ease of use of this quite effective software. Of course an educated operator is a great asset. It's nice to be alerted when any program attempts to start, control, modify, or connect with anything else, to investigate what it is and to choose to allow it or not. it isn't tops on cleaning keyloggers, etc where i still prefer Ad-Aware.
I'd been interested in linux in past but never took the plunge to get it & start learning. I may do it on an older computer of mine. It sounds interesting. I'll agree there's alot than can be done better than Windows..
On a slightly different note.. I particularly dislike the mouse & keyboard interface which most computers have had, i think since time immemorial.
My IBM laptop (and all of theirs) had a slight keyboard realignment & along with the track point pointing device & the attendant 'mouse' buttons one could do a [right click > b] to 'move back' in a single smooth motion without looking or moving the hands from the resting position.
Now i've a desktop computer that takes movement & coordination of two hands in two different places along with redirecting the eyes down to the keyboard to hit the B key to accomplish same task.
I dislike the extra keyboard keys this has too compared to simple laptop.
So much for my opinions.
i like y'all. thanks for being friends!
TeddyB.
Life's a trip * Friends help you through * Adventure on life!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I use a free download version of SuSE 10.0 with KDE. To me this combination works well (enough), although my 512MB of RAM is barely enough when working with large files, like Nikon NEF. The SuSE installer did a very good job detecting hardware, even on my laptop, although it took some tweaking to get the correct resolution. On my desktop computer everything went without a hitch. However, there is only the default and slow graphic driver for my ATI Radeon 9000 card and I don't want to interfere with the automatic kernel update by compiling an ATI tailor-made kernel. Maybe default drivers for Nvidia based graphics cards are faster?
Maybe KDE is not the fastest desktop, and somewhat bloated, but I like all the KDE and SuSE tools that are available, and I have never managed to establish a lasting relationship with Gnome.
Upgrading to an AMD64 is not far away, but I am unsure which mainboard, chipset (Nvidia?) and graphics card (Nvidia or ATI?) will make an optimal combination for Linux. I want more speed, but without sacrificing overall stability. Any suggestions?
I have never used Risc OS (or the Archimedes), but I still have a BBC computer , for nostalgic reasons, with no less than 32k RAM! ;-D
The "Konqueror" Explorer clone is ok for me but I'll certainly give ROX a try.
Sailor
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>Maybe default drivers for Nvidia based graphics cards are faster?
I've always gone for nvidia. They don't provide open source drivers, unfortunately for most of their graphics chipsets (there are some default, open source drivers available, but they are not optimal), but they do provide a tool that downloads all the kernel patches and their own proprietary stuff and compiles them for you automatically, even under Debian. It's extremely slick and easy and their proprietary drivers run very nicely indeed.
Apart from graphics cards and some very proprietary hardware, you can get Linux drivers for just about everything these days. I wouldn't worry too much about that.
I'm not sure what the status is of ATI drivers, but I've heard bad things about the company's lack of cooperation with Linux driver writers, so I've always avoided them. I stick with what I know.
>I still have a BBC computer
Hurray! You might be surprised to know that the BBC environment lives on to this day as part of Risc OS -- BBC BASIC comes as standard, even on modern Acorn clones. Risc OS also had a very advanced GUI for its day -- if you can get ROX running you might be able to get some idea of what it is like. Windows 95 "stole" several ideas from it.
ROX is a hundred times (well, an awful lot) faster than konqueror, but it doesn't have many bells and whistles, like a built-in web browser. I never use that, so I don't miss it. Other people might.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My apologies for the clumsy grammar in the parent post -- that's what comes of not proof-reading a post before submitting!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks, David!
You confirm my suspicions that Nvidia's graphics drivers are probably better than those for ATI cards. I'm not sure, though, about the process required for Nvidia's drivers to work properly after an automatic SuSE kernel upgrade. About the rest of it I believe you are right, and I assume that a stable motherboard is also a stable Linux motherboard.
I remember that there were similarities between the BBC and the Risc OS environments. The BBC was used for some years in Norwegian schools because of the rich variety of software and hardware being made available for pupils with special needs. However, when the BBC was replaced by the Archimedes, focus had already shifted towards more commonly available Windows computers, and as far as I can remember, only very few Archimedes computers were sold here. I never used an Archimedes myself but I remember that it had a nice-looking and easy to use desktop. Yes, the guys in Redmond were always good at copying other people's good ideas, weren't they? The time has obviously come for them to face stronger competition than they have been used to, which is a good thing.
As for grammar and spelling - please treat me leniently! :-[
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>You confirm my suspicions that Nvidia's graphics drivers are probably better than those for ATI cards. I'm not sure, though, about the process required for Nvidia's drivers to work properly after an automatic SuSE kernel upgrade. About the rest of it I believe you are right, and I assume that a stable motherboard is also a stable Linux motherboard.
I need to re-run the installer again each time I upgrade the kernel. I only do that three or four times a year, and it only takes a couple of minutes to run the installer, so it causes me practically no inconvenience whatsoever. You'd probably want to update to the latest driver periodically, anyway.
The Archimedes had a very advanced interface for its time -- simple to use, yet had many features that Windows didn't get until at least 1995. It also booted very fast -- the operating system was all stored in ROM, and only the user's files were stored on the hard disk. The RiscPC, which came after it, had a much faster processor and used the same chips that are now used in PDAs and mobile phones (StrongARMs -- ARM was Acorn's chip-designing division). You could get an Acorn running at 206 Mhz when the fastest Intel was a Pentium 75. For the time, they were unbelievably wonderful to use. Unfortunately the operating system was rather left behind -- it never got proper pre-emptive multitasking, and it was a bit crash-prone. (This was not such a major problem as with Windows, as a computer could reboot and be back up again in ten seconds, but it was annoying.) Unfortunately Acorn went bust in 1998/9 (mostly, anyway) and the vast majority of users moved across to Windows (or, just as commonly, Linux). There are still clones available, but goodness knows who buys them -- they are a lot more expensive than equivalent PCs.
David
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
