Sprinkler Systems Uhaul move Lawn care Roses and trees Ford Parts Chrysler Parts Lake Powell New IPod Touch Apps New IPhone Apps IPhone Apps IPad Information IPad Apps Android APPS Android Games APPS Android Systems Android Tablets APPS and Beyond Smartphone Apps Smartphone Games Apps Repair and Tools Tablet PC Car Sharing Car Leasing Tabler Pc Fly Fishing Toyota Cars Vacation Rentals Stock market NYSE SSE Stock Freight & Shipping News Gluten Lactose Gout My Coupon Life Campgrounds Check Outdoor Kitchen Design and Redoo Bath Remodeling Palm Springs Las Vegas Vacation Tipps Lake Powell Boating Homes for lease Electric and green Car Blog Pearls and diamonds Whatsapp and forget SMS Blog, What is Whatsapp App Solar Panel Solar Energie Sun Power Blog
Reader


[Suche]  [Administrator]  [Hinweise zum Reader]  [Startseite]
Fantasy » alt.fan.pratchett » [I] Gaaaah! (Insert subject here)
[I] Gaaaah! (Insert subject here) [message #275307] Mi, 31 Mai 2006 13:36
Torak  
I use Norton Internet Security. Every few minutes I get a warning that a
remote system is trying to access my computer. "Allow Always" is marked
"(Recommended)". This is annoying, as is the fact that the window is
Always On Top, and that I can't seem to set it to automatically tell
those requests where to shove themselves.

It could be a hacker. It could also, I assume, be any number of other
things. What else could it be? Do I need to worry? Is there any way of
getting rid of those alerts without compromising security?
Re: [I] Gaaaah! (Insert subject here) [message #275309 ] Mi, 31 Mai 2006 13:40
Brenda  
Torak said:

> It could be a hacker. It could also, I assume, be any number of other
> things. What else could it be? Do I need to worry? Is there any way of
> getting rid of those alerts without compromising security?

You could install Linux. :-)

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)
Re: [I] Gaaaah! (Insert subject here) [message #275311 ] Mi, 31 Mai 2006 13:44
Torak  
Richard Heathfield wrote:
> Torak said:
>
>
>>It could be a hacker. It could also, I assume, be any number of other
>>things. What else could it be? Do I need to worry? Is there any way of
>>getting rid of those alerts without compromising security?
>
>
> You could install Linux. :-)

....and without compromising functionality.

Are there Linux builds that can run any and all Windows software? And
can't Linux still be accessed externally? Isn't it just viruses that
Linux is (more or less) immune to?
Re: [I] Gaaaah! (Insert subject here) [message #275312 ] Mi, 31 Mai 2006 13:47
Rgemini  
Torak wrote:
> I use Norton Internet Security. Every few minutes I get a warning that a
> remote system is trying to access my computer. "Allow Always" is marked
> "(Recommended)". This is annoying, as is the fact that the window is
> Always On Top, and that I can't seem to set it to automatically tell
> those requests where to shove themselves.
>
> It could be a hacker. It could also, I assume, be any number of other
> things. What else could it be? Do I need to worry? Is there any way of
> getting rid of those alerts without compromising security?

Does Norton allow you to see details about who is trying to access your
system? If so then see what the IP address is and then use something
like the Sam Spade tools to find out what you can about that address. It
could be something innocuous - for example your ISP routinely pinging to
find out if your link is still live - or it could be the usual
script-kiddy hackers probing for unsecured systems.

Personally I won't go near Norton stuff because it is heavy-handed and
expensive for what it does. It seems to make PCs run slower and takes
away control from the user. But that's just my opinion.

In any case I wouldn't turn off the alerts unless and until you know
what it is trying to tell you about.

regards
Rgemini, just back from Orkney
Re: [I] Gaaaah! (Insert subject here) [message #275315 ] Mi, 31 Mai 2006 14:03
Brenda  
Torak said:

> Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> Torak said:
>>
>>
>>>It could be a hacker. It could also, I assume, be any number of other
>>>things. What else could it be? Do I need to worry? Is there any way of
>>>getting rid of those alerts without compromising security?
>>
>>
>> You could install Linux. :-)
>
> ...and without compromising functionality.

Getting rid of Windows would only compromise *dys*functionality. :-)

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)
Re: [I] Gaaaah! (Insert subject here) [message #275324 ] Mi, 31 Mai 2006 14:27
Torak  
Rgemini wrote:
> Torak wrote:
>
>> I use Norton Internet Security. Every few minutes I get a warning that
>> a remote system is trying to access my computer. "Allow Always" is
>> marked "(Recommended)". This is annoying, as is the fact that the
>> window is Always On Top, and that I can't seem to set it to
>> automatically tell those requests where to shove themselves.
>>
>> It could be a hacker. It could also, I assume, be any number of other
>> things. What else could it be? Do I need to worry? Is there any way of
>> getting rid of those alerts without compromising security?
>
> Does Norton allow you to see details about who is trying to access your
> system? If so then see what the IP address is and then use something
> like the Sam Spade tools to find out what you can about that address. It
> could be something innocuous - for example your ISP routinely pinging to
> find out if your link is still live - or it could be the usual
> script-kiddy hackers probing for unsecured systems.

I try running a trace on it occasionally, but they always time out after
fifteen or sixteen hops. The recent ones tend to hop mainly off French
servers.

I had Magic NetTrace, but that's expired now.

> Personally I won't go near Norton stuff because it is heavy-handed and
> expensive for what it does. It seems to make PCs run slower and takes
> away control from the user. But that's just my opinion.

Myeah... I find that it's more effective at blocking things than the
alternatives, though, even if I hate the resource hogging and interface.
The one I absolutely can't stand, though, is McAffee.

> In any case I wouldn't turn off the alerts unless and until you know
> what it is trying to tell you about.

No worries - I'm not letting anyone in.
Re: [I] Gaaaah! (Insert subject here) [message #275325 ] Mi, 31 Mai 2006 14:28
Torak  
Richard Heathfield wrote:
> Torak said:
>>Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>Torak said:
>>>
>>>>It could be a hacker. It could also, I assume, be any number of other
>>>>things. What else could it be? Do I need to worry? Is there any way of
>>>>getting rid of those alerts without compromising security?
>>>
>>>
>>>You could install Linux. :-)
>>
>>...and without compromising functionality.
>
> Getting rid of Windows would only compromise *dys*functionality. :-)

I have lots of software that I need to be able to run. Will it work
under any version of Linux?
Re: [I] Gaaaah! (Insert subject here) [message #275328 ] Mi, 31 Mai 2006 14:35
Brenda  
Torak said:

> Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> Torak said:
>>>Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>>Torak said:
>>>>
>>>>>It could be a hacker. It could also, I assume, be any number of other
>>>>>things. What else could it be? Do I need to worry? Is there any way of
>>>>>getting rid of those alerts without compromising security?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>You could install Linux. :-)
>>>
>>>...and without compromising functionality.
>>
>> Getting rid of Windows would only compromise *dys*functionality. :-)
>
> I have lots of software that I need to be able to run. Will it work
> under any version of Linux?

Sure, if the software was written portably; just move the source code over
to Linux and recompile. That's what I do.

But all right - I do understand your point: you have an existing investment
in huge amounts of software that you've paid vast amounts of money for, and
all your data is locked into the proprietary formats supported by that
software, and now you're trapped on an insecure platform and there's
nothing you can do except throw more money at the problem in the hope it'll
go away for a while.

I sympathise with you. Honestly I do.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)
Re: [I] Gaaaah! (Insert subject here) [message #275331 ] Mi, 31 Mai 2006 14:37
Brenda  
Torak wrote:
> Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> Torak said:
>>> Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>> Torak said:
>>>>
>>>>> It could be a hacker. It could also, I assume, be any number of
>>>>> other things. What else could it be? Do I need to worry? Is there
>>>>> any way of getting rid of those alerts without compromising
>>>>> security?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You could install Linux. :-)
>>>
>>> ...and without compromising functionality.
>>
>> Getting rid of Windows would only compromise *dys*functionality. :-)
>
> I have lots of software that I need to be able to run. Will it work
> under any version of Linux?

The answer is in the question ... from a suitably BOFH perspective that is!

;-)

--
Ed.
Re: [I] Gaaaah! (Insert subject here) [message #275334 ] Mi, 31 Mai 2006 14:59
Paul Harman  
"Torak" <perry_awm [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ndffg.1163$YI3.144 [at] amstwist00...
>I use Norton Internet Security. Every few minutes I get a warning that a
>remote system is trying to access my computer. "Allow Always" is marked
>"(Recommended)". This is annoying, as is the fact that the window is Always
>On Top, and that I can't seem to set it to automatically tell those
>requests where to shove themselves.


Norton recommends "Allow Always"? What a POS! It's almost certainly
something trying to get into your box that you really really don't want to
allow.

Paul
Re: [I] Gaaaah! (Insert subject here) [message #275338 ] Mi, 31 Mai 2006 15:31
Puck  
Torak wrote:
> I use Norton Internet Security. Every few minutes I get a warning
> that a remote system is trying to access my computer. "Allow Always"
> is marked "(Recommended)". This is annoying, as is the fact that the
> window is Always On Top, and that I can't seem to set it to
> automatically tell those requests where to shove themselves.
>
> It could be a hacker. It could also, I assume, be any number of other
> things. What else could it be? Do I need to worry? Is there any way of
> getting rid of those alerts without compromising security?

Up until a couple of months ago I had the same problem. My solution was
basically uncreative: I got rid of Norton. The suite was getting on my
nerves. The ad-blocker didn't block enough ads, the spam blocker didn't
block enough spam, the virus scans took way too long, etc. As soon as my
subscription ran out I switched to Zone Alarm. It has only been a few
months, but so far I am happy with the switch.
--
Puck (onstage): I am that merry wanderer of the night!
Peaseblossom (in audience): "I am that merry wanderer of the night",
indeed! "I am that
giggling-dangerous-totally-bloody-psychotic-menace-to-life and limb,
more like." -Neil Gaiman
Re: [I] Gaaaah! (Insert subject here) [message #275339 ] Mi, 31 Mai 2006 15:41
Kar98  
On 2006-05-31 06:44:54 -0500, Torak <perry_awm [at] hotmail.com> said:

> Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> Torak said:
>>
>>
>>> It could be a hacker. It could also, I assume, be any number of other
>>> things. What else could it be? Do I need to worry? Is there any way of
>>> getting rid of those alerts without compromising security?
>>
>>
>> You could install Linux. :-)
>
> ...and without compromising functionality.

Get a Mac :-)


--
You who are wicked, evil and mean
I'm the nastiest creep you've ever seen!
Come one, come all, put up a fight
I'll pound your butts with Green Lantern's light!
Re: [I] Gaaaah! (Insert subject here) [message #275341 ] Mi, 31 Mai 2006 15:47
Torak  
Paul Harman wrote:
> "Torak" <perry_awm [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ndffg.1163$YI3.144 [at] amstwist00...
>
>>I use Norton Internet Security. Every few minutes I get a warning that a
>>remote system is trying to access my computer. "Allow Always" is marked
>>"(Recommended)". This is annoying, as is the fact that the window is Always
>>On Top, and that I can't seem to set it to automatically tell those
>>requests where to shove themselves.
>
> Norton recommends "Allow Always"? What a POS! It's almost certainly
> something trying to get into your box that you really really don't want to
> allow.

Yeah, my thoughts exactly. I've now got the keystrokes for "Block
Always" ingrained into muscle memory.
Re: [I] Gaaaah! (Insert subject here) [message #275342 ] Mi, 31 Mai 2006 15:49
Torak  
René wrote:
> On 2006-05-31 06:44:54 -0500, Torak <perry_awm [at] hotmail.com> said:
>> Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>> Torak said:
>>>
>>>> It could be a hacker. It could also, I assume, be any number of other
>>>> things. What else could it be? Do I need to worry? Is there any way of
>>>> getting rid of those alerts without compromising security?
>>>
>>> You could install Linux. :-)
>>
>> ...and without compromising functionality.
>
> Get a Mac :-)

GAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!

Don't say things like that without a few lines' warning, for heaven's sake!
Re: [I] Gaaaah! (Insert subject here) [message #275346 ] Mi, 31 Mai 2006 16:01
Andy Davison  
On Wednesday 31 May 2006 13:28, Torak wrote:

> I have lots of software that I need to be able to run. Will it work
> under any version of Linux?

A lot of stuff can run under WINE though not all. There are Linux
alternatives to some stuff. Where Linux does tend to fall down is if you
play a lot of games as these don't tend to run as fast under WINE even if
they run. If you want to surf the web, email, newsgroups, watch DVDs,
listen to online radio streams, edit photos or audio etc. etc. there are
applications out there to do this easily. If you want to try Linux the
easiest way is to get hold of a live CD/DVD version either by download or
on the cover disc of a magazine. These run slower than installed software
as they are running from the CD/DVD itself but will give you a good idea of
what you can do. If you then decide to install a Linux distro you don't
have to remove Windows. You can set it up as dual boot. Distros like Suse,
Mandriva and (K)Ubuntu are very good at hardware recognition these days so
installation is usually quite painless
--
Andy Davison
andy [at] oiyou.force9.co.uk
Re: [I] Gaaaah! (Insert subject here) [message #275347 ] Mi, 31 Mai 2006 16:10
Kar98  
On 2006-05-31 08:49:04 -0500, Torak <perry_awm [at] hotmail.com> said:

> René wrote:
>> On 2006-05-31 06:44:54 -0500, Torak <perry_awm [at] hotmail.com> said:
>>> Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>> Torak said:
>>>>
>>>>> It could be a hacker. It could also, I assume, be any number of other
>>>>> things. What else could it be? Do I need to worry? Is there any way of
>>>>> getting rid of those alerts without compromising security?
>>>>
>>>> You could install Linux. :-)
>>>
>>> ...and without compromising functionality.
>>
>> Get a Mac :-)
>
> GAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!
>
> Don't say things like that without a few lines' warning, for heaven's sake!


You posted about problems with Windows and a Symantec problem. That was
your warning right there.


--
Dig a moat the length of the Mexican border. Take the dirt, raise the
levees in New Orleans, and put the Florida alligators in the moat.
Are there any other problems you would like for me to solve?
Re: [I] Gaaaah! (Insert subject here) [message #275349 ] Mi, 31 Mai 2006 16:18
Kar98  
On 2006-05-31 09:10:58 -0500, René <Kar98 [at] The-Coalition.US> said:

> On 2006-05-31 08:49:04 -0500, Torak <perry_awm [at] hotmail.com> said:
>
>> René wrote:
>>> On 2006-05-31 06:44:54 -0500, Torak <perry_awm [at] hotmail.com> said:
>>>> Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>>> Torak said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> It could be a hacker. It could also, I assume, be any number of other
>>>>>> things. What else could it be? Do I need to worry? Is there any way of
>>>>>> getting rid of those alerts without compromising security?
>>>>>
>>>>> You could install Linux. :-)
>>>>
>>>> ...and without compromising functionality.
>>>
>>> Get a Mac :-)
>>
>> GAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!
>>
>> Don't say things like that without a few lines' warning, for heaven's sake!
>
>
> You posted about problems with Windows and a Symantec problem. That was
> your warning right there.


Second "problem" should have read "product".

--
The short answer is "Yes." The long answer is "No."
Re: [I] Gaaaah! (Insert subject here) [message #275353 ] Mi, 31 Mai 2006 16:51
Puck  
René wrote:
> On 2006-05-31 06:44:54 -0500, Torak <perry_awm [at] hotmail.com> said:
>
>> Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>> Torak said:
>>>
>>>
>>>> It could be a hacker. It could also, I assume, be any number of
>>>> other things. What else could it be? Do I need to worry? Is there
>>>> any way of getting rid of those alerts without compromising
>>>> security?
>>>
>>>
>>> You could install Linux. :-)
>>
>> ...and without compromising functionality.
>
> Get a Mac :-)

Yes, and then prevent viruses from getting on your hard drive by sticking a
big magnet to it.

You did read the line about functionality, right? OSX is to Lunux what Ed
Wood is to Hitchcock.
--
Puck (onstage): I am that merry wanderer of the night!
Peaseblossom (in audience): "I am that merry wanderer of the night",
indeed! "I am that
giggling-dangerous-totally-bloody-psychotic-menace-to-life and limb,
more like." -Neil Gaiman
Re: [I] Gaaaah! (Insert subject here) [message #275357 ] Mi, 31 Mai 2006 16:58
Torak  
Andy Davison wrote:
> On Wednesday 31 May 2006 13:28, Torak wrote:
>
>
>>I have lots of software that I need to be able to run. Will it work
>>under any version of Linux?
>
>
> A lot of stuff can run under WINE though not all. There are Linux
> alternatives to some stuff. Where Linux does tend to fall down is if you
> play a lot of games as these don't tend to run as fast under WINE even if
> they run. If you want to surf the web, email, newsgroups, watch DVDs,
> listen to online radio streams, edit photos or audio etc. etc. there are
> applications out there to do this easily. If you want to try Linux the
> easiest way is to get hold of a live CD/DVD version either by download or
> on the cover disc of a magazine. These run slower than installed software
> as they are running from the CD/DVD itself but will give you a good idea of
> what you can do. If you then decide to install a Linux distro you don't
> have to remove Windows. You can set it up as dual boot. Distros like Suse,
> Mandriva and (K)Ubuntu are very good at hardware recognition these days so
> installation is usually quite painless

Myeah... I'll try a CD-booted version some time, but any installed
version will have to wait for my next computer. This one's almost out of
disc.
Re: [I] Gaaaah! (Insert subject here) [message #275358 ] Mi, 31 Mai 2006 16:58
Orjan Westin  
Puck wrote:
> René wrote:
>> On 2006-05-31 06:44:54 -0500, Torak <perry_awm [at] hotmail.com> said:
>>
>>> Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>>
>>>> You could install Linux. :-)
>>>
>>> ...and without compromising functionality.
>>
>> Get a Mac :-)
>
> Yes, and then prevent viruses from getting on your hard drive by
> sticking a big magnet to it.
>
> You did read the line about functionality, right? OSX is to Lunux
> what Ed Wood is to Hitchcock.

Bah!

Give me AmigaOS 2.1 any day. If we're going to have the big OS war,
complete with Open/Closed Source ideological sniping without regards for
the actual needs and preferences different people have, I want to be
armed with something small, fast, efficient and powerful.

The vintage geek value is an added bonus. AmigaOS is to Linux what
Gimli is to Treebeard.

Getshoor torches an' pitchforks 'ere! Buy three, pay for four!

Orjan
--
The Tale of Westala and Villtin
http://tale.cunobaros.com/
Fiction, Thoughts and Software
http://www.cunobaros.com/
Re: [I] Gaaaah! (Insert subject here) [message #275359 ] Mi, 31 Mai 2006 16:52
Arthur Hagen  
Puck <Kormos.4 [at] osu.edu> wrote:
>
> Up until a couple of months ago I had the same problem. My solution
> was basically uncreative: I got rid of Norton. The suite was getting
> on my nerves. The ad-blocker didn't block enough ads, the spam
> blocker didn't block enough spam, the virus scans took way too long,
> etc. As soon as my subscription ran out I switched to Zone Alarm. It
> has only been a few months, but so far I am happy with the switch.

If you have a NAT router, you /probably/ won't need a personal firewall at
all.

(I say /probably/, because if you surf on dubious sites and install whatever
pops up, and open emails indiscriminately, you can get your machine infected
that way, and having a personal firewall would then be a good thing to
protect the rest of the world from YOU.)

If you need a good AV program that doesn't take up too much resources, I'd
recommend NOD32 from Eset. It wins most tests both on what it finds, how
few false positives there are, and low use of system resources (VERY unlike
Norton and McAffee).

Regards,
--
*Art
Re: [I] Gaaaah! (Insert subject here) [message #275360 ] Mi, 31 Mai 2006 17:01
Torak  
Orjan Westin wrote:
>
> Give me AmigaOS 2.1 any day. If we're going to have the big OS war,
> complete with Open/Closed Source ideological sniping without regards for
> the actual needs and preferences different people have, I want to be
> armed with something small, fast, efficient and powerful.
>
> The vintage geek value is an added bonus. AmigaOS is to Linux what
> Gimli is to Treebeard.
>
> Getshoor torches an' pitchforks 'ere! Buy three, pay for four!

Two words: BBC Micro.
Re: [I] Gaaaah! (Insert subject here) [message #275364 ] Mi, 31 Mai 2006 17:51
Dom  
Torak wrote:
> Orjan Westin wrote:
>>
>> Give me AmigaOS 2.1 any day. If we're going to have the big OS war,
>> complete with Open/Closed Source ideological sniping without regards for
>> the actual needs and preferences different people have, I want to be
>> armed with something small, fast, efficient and powerful.
>>
>> The vintage geek value is an added bonus. AmigaOS is to Linux what
>> Gimli is to Treebeard.
>>
>> Getshoor torches an' pitchforks 'ere! Buy three, pay for four!
>
> Two words: BBC Micro.

Now you're talking :)

Although I haven't touched a Beeb for nearly 24 hours.

--
Dom
afpSlave to CCA
Re: [I] Gaaaah! (Insert subject here) [message #275366 ] Mi, 31 Mai 2006 18:01
Brenda  
Torak said:

> Orjan Westin wrote:
>>
>> Give me AmigaOS 2.1 any day. If we're going to have the big OS war,
>> complete with Open/Closed Source ideological sniping without regards for
>> the actual needs and preferences different people have, I want to be
>> armed with something small, fast, efficient and powerful.
>>
>> The vintage geek value is an added bonus. AmigaOS is to Linux what
>> Gimli is to Treebeard.
>>
>> Getshoor torches an' pitchforks 'ere! Buy three, pay for four!
>
> Two words: BBC Micro.

Typical modern junk. Give me some serious iron running VM/CMS, any day.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)
Re: [I] Gaaaah! (Insert subject here) [message #275370 ] Mi, 31 Mai 2006 18:24
Torak  
Dom wrote:
> Torak wrote:
>
>>Orjan Westin wrote:
>>
>>>Give me AmigaOS 2.1 any day. If we're going to have the big OS war,
>>>complete with Open/Closed Source ideological sniping without regards for
>>>the actual needs and preferences different people have, I want to be
>>>armed with something small, fast, efficient and powerful.
>>>
>>>The vintage geek value is an added bonus. AmigaOS is to Linux what
>>>Gimli is to Treebeard.
>>>
>>>Getshoor torches an' pitchforks 'ere! Buy three, pay for four!
>>
>>Two words: BBC Micro.
>
> Now you're talking :)
>
> Although I haven't touched a Beeb for nearly 24 hours.

Mine decided to give up the ghost a few years ago. :-(

Lovely little machine, though, with possibly the most satisfying
keyboard ever built.
Re: [I] Gaaaah! (Insert subject here) [message #275371 ] Mi, 31 Mai 2006 18:30
Blake  
Richard Heathfield wrote:

> Torak said:
>
>
>>Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>
>>>Torak said:
>>>
>>>>Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Torak said:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>It could be a hacker. It could also, I assume, be any number of other
>>>>>>things. What else could it be? Do I need to worry? Is there any way of
>>>>>>getting rid of those alerts without compromising security?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>You could install Linux. :-)
>>>>
>>>>...and without compromising functionality.
>>>
>>>Getting rid of Windows would only compromise *dys*functionality. :-)
>>
>>I have lots of software that I need to be able to run. Will it work
>>under any version of Linux?
>
>
> Sure, if the software was written portably; just move the source code over
> to Linux and recompile. That's what I do.
>
> But all right - I do understand your point: you have an existing investment
> in huge amounts of software that you've paid vast amounts of money for, and
> all your data is locked into the proprietary formats supported by that
> software, and now you're trapped on an insecure platform and there's
> nothing you can do except throw more money at the problem in the hope it'll
> go away for a while.
>
> I sympathise with you. Honestly I do.
>
Ouch, that was nasty.
;-)
I run both, prefer Linux, but need to upgrade to a more current release
before I kiss/boot Windoze goodbye.
Re: [I] Gaaaah! (Insert subject here) [message #275372 ] Mi, 31 Mai 2006 18:33
steelcat  
In article <A9hfg.1171$YI3.78 [at] amstwist00>,
Torak <perry_awm [at] hotmail.com> wrote:

>René wrote:
>> On 2006-05-31 06:44:54 -0500, Torak <perry_awm [at] hotmail.com> said:
>>> Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>> Torak said:
>>>>
>>>>> It could be a hacker. It could also, I assume, be any number of other
>>>>> things. What else could it be? Do I need to worry? Is there any way of
>>>>> getting rid of those alerts without compromising security?
>>>>
>>>> You could install Linux. :-)
>>>
>>> ...and without compromising functionality.
>>
>> Get a Mac :-)
>
>GAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!
>
>Don't say things like that without a few lines' warning, for heaven's sake!

Yes, someone should have warned you that Andrew views all we Mac users as
effete, artsy types who shouldn't be allowed near any technology more
advanced than a toothbrush...

....I'm paraphrasing, of course. ;o)

Cat.
--
Jazz-Loving Soul Mate and Tolerable Frog to CCA
We gotta go to the crappy town where *I'm* a hero.
Re: [I] Gaaaah! (Insert subject here) [message #275373 ] Mi, 31 Mai 2006 18:46
tms  
Richard Heathfield wrote:
> Torak said:
>
>>It could be a hacker. It could also, I assume, be any number of other
>>things. What else could it be? Do I need to worry? Is there any way of
>>getting rid of those alerts without compromising security?
>
> You could install Linux. :-)

Or he could install a *real* operating system: one of the BSDs.

--
Thomas M. Sommers -- tms [at] nj.net -- AB2SB
Re: [I] Gaaaah! (Insert subject here) [message #275374 ] Mi, 31 Mai 2006 18:47
Brenda  
The Stainless Steel Cat said:

> Yes, someone should have warned you that Andrew views all we Mac users as
> effete, artsy types who shouldn't be allowed near any technology more
> advanced than a toothbrush...

Andrew! Fetch the toothbrush!

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)
Re: [I] Gaaaah! (Insert subject here) [message #275386 ] Mi, 31 Mai 2006 19:42
Torak  
The Stainless Steel Cat wrote:
>
> Yes, someone should have warned you that [Torak] views all we Mac users as
> effete, artsy types who shouldn't be allowed near any technology more
> advanced than a toothbrush...
>
> ....I'm paraphrasing, of course. ;o)

No you weren't. :-p
Re: [I] Gaaaah! (Insert subject here) [message #275389 ] Mi, 31 Mai 2006 19:56
Torak  
Blake wrote:
> Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> Torak said:
>>> Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>> Torak said:
>>>>> Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>>>> Torak said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It could be a hacker. It could also, I assume, be any number of
>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>> things. What else could it be? Do I need to worry? Is there any
>>>>>>> way of
>>>>>>> getting rid of those alerts without compromising security?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You could install Linux. :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> ...and without compromising functionality.
>>>>
>>>> Getting rid of Windows would only compromise *dys*functionality. :-)
>>>
>>> I have lots of software that I need to be able to run. Will it work
>>> under any version of Linux?
>>
>> Sure, if the software was written portably; just move the source code
>> over to Linux and recompile. That's what I do.

Yes, because we're all software engineers with compilers and the
knowledge and experience to decompile apps.

>> But all right - I do understand your point: you have an existing
>> investment in huge amounts of software that you've paid vast amounts
>> of money for, and all your data is locked into the proprietary formats
>> supported by that software, and now you're trapped on an insecure
>> platform and there's nothing you can do except throw more money at the
>> problem in the hope it'll go away for a while.
>>
>> I sympathise with you. Honestly I do.
>>
> Ouch, that was nasty.

No. It tried to be, but being used to my sister's practiced nastiness I
couldn't be arsed to respond to it. ;-)

At the moment, Linux doesn't support the apps I need, and isn't used
enough to make it worthwhile for companies to make software specifically
for it. But maybe Richard has a special source for Linux builds of Power
Structure and Final Draft. Or Linux-enabled versions of SWAT 3. While
still retaining performance.

(If anyone knows of any Linux builds that do run Windows apps without
reducing performance, by the way, do let me know.)
Re: [I] Gaaaah! (Insert subject here) [message #275403 ] Mi, 31 Mai 2006 20:26
Brenda  
Torak said:

> Blake wrote:
>> Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>> Torak said:
>>>>
>>>> I have lots of software that I need to be able to run. Will it work
>>>> under any version of Linux?
>>>
>>> Sure, if the software was written portably; just move the source code
>>> over to Linux and recompile. That's what I do.
>
> Yes, because we're all software engineers

Quite so.

> with compilers

Well, I hear that some people use assemblers, but yeah, compilers are
prevalent.

> and the knowledge and experience to decompile apps.

Er, no. Just use the source code; it's a lot easier and more reliable.

Um, you do /have/ the source code, yes?

> At the moment, Linux doesn't support the apps I need,

That's just another way of saying "at the moment, my software supplier
doesn't support the operating system I need - and won't give me the source
code so that I can port the software to that OS myself".

> and isn't used
> enough to make it worthwhile for companies to make software specifically
> for it.

No, lots of people use Linux. The reason it is rarely worthwhile for
companies to target Linux specifically is that they'll be competing, in
many cases, with a program available, complete with source code, for free.
Why would Adobe, say, try to sell a Linux port of Photoshop, when all the
Linux users will ignore it completely and use the GIMP for free instead?

> But maybe Richard has a special source for Linux builds of Power
> Structure and Final Draft. Or Linux-enabled versions of SWAT 3. While
> still retaining performance.

Oh, I'm sure I could dig out a few programs I've written, and call them by
those names, just for you.

> (If anyone knows of any Linux builds that do run Windows apps without
> reducing performance, by the way, do let me know.)

Okay, serious hat on for a second. I'm no expert on WINE, but I've heard a
thing or two about it. It doesn't run all Windows apps, but it does run
quite a few - and almost certainly the ones it does run will be
"well-behaved" apps, ones that go to the Win32 API for all their hardware
needs. As far as I'm aware, there is no reason for WINE-friendly apps to
run significantly slower on Linux than on Windows. It's not as if there's
some kind of lame interpreter thingy going on under the hood. They should
run pretty close to native speed.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)
Re: [I] Gaaaah! (Insert subject here) [message #275420 ] Mi, 31 Mai 2006 22:03
Steve Rogers  
"Puck" <Kormos.4 [at] osu.edu> wrote in message
news:e5k5rl$7nk$1 [at] charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
> Torak wrote:
>> I use Norton Internet Security. Every few minutes I get a warning
>> that a remote system is trying to access my computer. "Allow Always"
>> is marked "(Recommended)". This is annoying, as is the fact that the
>> window is Always On Top, and that I can't seem to set it to
>> automatically tell those requests where to shove themselves.
>>
>> It could be a hacker. It could also, I assume, be any number of other
>> things. What else could it be? Do I need to worry? Is there any way
>> of
>> getting rid of those alerts without compromising security?
>
> Up until a couple of months ago I had the same problem. My solution
> was
> basically uncreative: I got rid of Norton. The suite was getting on my
> nerves. The ad-blocker didn't block enough ads, the spam blocker
> didn't
> block enough spam, the virus scans took way too long, etc. As soon as
> my
> subscription ran out I switched to Zone Alarm. It has only been a few
> months, but so far I am happy with the switch.

Yup ZoneAlarm here as well coz I found Norton to be a POS and very poor
when it came to controlling things. The Full all singing and dancing
Zone Alarm is the one to go for mind if you can, it's anti-virus and
anti-spyware aren't to bad and catch a lot of things that others miss,
and it offers a hell of a lot more control over things than a lot of
others.

Mind you as I run my own DNS server etc, I block shed loads anyway at
that level and any I miss get caught usually by the Hosts file, with my
own Web Cache and it's filters taking care of a lot of other misses -
basically I am a suspicious sod when it comes to websites that I don't
know.

An interesting aside, some of the more popular anti ad and spy programs
will pick up Host file entries that lead to the loopback (127.0.0.1) as
being Trojan or other type attacks, something that I've been beating the
various tech support guys for the companies about for the past few as
they class entries here as High regardless of what they actually are -
each piece of software ignores different things as well as not flagging
up the same items so just goes to show.

Steve
Re: [I] Gaaaah! (Insert subject here) [message #275457 ] Mi, 31 Mai 2006 23:33
Nigel Stapley  
Puck wrote:

>
> Up until a couple of months ago I had the same problem. My solution was
> basically uncreative: I got rid of Norton. The suite was getting on my
> nerves. The ad-blocker didn't block enough ads, the spam blocker didn't
> block enough spam, the virus scans took way too long, etc. As soon as my
> subscription ran out I switched to Zone Alarm. It has only been a few
> months, but so far I am happy with the switch.

When I got this PC (5 years ago next week - a self birthday present),
the guy who built it pre-loaded it with Norton AV and Norton Utilities.
As they seemed to work fine, I stuck with them, and upgraded each year...

....Until NAV/NU 2004 (I think it was). These turned out to be
irredeemable crocks of poo, blue-screen dreams each of them.

So I junked Norton (all of it). For AV, first I went to AVG, but it
created a couple of odd problems which Grisoft weren't willing to help
with because I was only using the free version. So, after a couple of
weeks, I went to Avast!, and have been using it ever since (2+ years).
It's very good, and updates nearly every day.

When I went broadband 3 years ago, I needed a firewall. ZoneAlarm was
widely recommended, so I used the free edition. That was OK for a year
or so, but then they had to go and *improve* it, didn't they? More
BSODs. I got rid of that, and went with Sygate Personal Firewall. That's
pretty good - well, in fact, my system is as tight as a kangeroo's
khyber (a virtual blue Smartie to whoever gets *that* reference!). I
just get occasional problems when it seems to hang on shutdown.

The trouble is that Sygate has now been bought out by Symantec (who
produce Norton). Their first act was to take down all of Sygate's
products. Bastards.

--
Regards

Nigel Stapley

www.judgemental.plus.com

<reply-to will bounce>
Re: [I] Gaaaah! (Insert subject here) [message #275462 ] Mi, 31 Mai 2006 23:38
Hendrik Schober  
Arthur Hagen <art [at] broomstick.com> wrote:
> [...]
> If you need a good AV program that doesn't take up too much resources, I'd
> recommend NOD32 from Eset. It wins most tests both on what it finds, how
> few false positives there are, and low use of system resources (VERY unlike
> Norton and McAffee).

Seconded.

Schobi

--
SpamTrap [at] gmx.de is never read
I'm Schobi at suespammers dot org

"The sarcasm is mightier than the sword."
Eric Jarvis
Re: [I] Gaaaah! (Insert subject here) [message #275518 ] Do, 01 Juni 2006 07:11
April Goodwin-Smith  
"René" wrote ...
<snip>
> Get a Mac :-)
>

Sha na na na, sha na na na na
Get a Mac
Sha na na na, sha na na na na
Get a Mac
Sha na na na, sha na na na na
Get a Mac
Sha na na na, sha na na na na

Dipdipdipdipdipdipdipdip
Boomboomboomboomboomboomboomboom

Get a Mac
Sha na na na, sha na na na na


April.
Re: [I] Gaaaah! (Insert subject here) [message #276087 ] Fr, 02 Juni 2006 04:01
Andy Davison  
On Wednesday 31 May 2006 19:26, Richard Heathfield wrote:

> Why would Adobe, say, try to sell a Linux port of Photoshop, when all the
> Linux users will ignore it completely and use the GIMP for free instead?

The GIMP is seriously limited compared to Photoshop in certain respects so
some Linux users wouldn't ignore a port of PS. Certainly the 8-bit thing
and lack of native CMYK. The sort of things I don't need but professionals
preparing copy for printers are likely to. The GIMP is all I'll ever need.
It is far more powerful than that actually. The things I can't work out how
to do are mainly things I don't want to (HDR for instance). About the only
thing is to get the perspective to move both sides in at the same time the
same distance just by dragging on one corner which I can't find out how to
do or if it's possible and that is something I want once in a blue moon.
--
Andy Davison
andy [at] oiyou.force9.co.uk
Re: [I] Gaaaah! (Insert subject here) [message #277385 ] Sa, 03 Juni 2006 19:54
Rocky Frisco  
April Goodwin-Smith wrote:

> "René" wrote ...
> <snip>
>
>>Get a Mac :-)
>>
>
>
> Sha na na na, sha na na na na
> Get a Mac
> Sha na na na, sha na na na na
> Get a Mac
> Sha na na na, sha na na na na
> Get a Mac
> Sha na na na, sha na na na na
>
> Dipdipdipdipdipdipdipdip
> Boomboomboomboomboomboomboomboom
>
> Get a Mac
> Sha na na na, sha na na na na
>
>
> April.

Thanks!! Made my morning!

-Rocky
--
O'Toole's Corollary: Murphy was an optimist.
Re: [I] Gaaaah! (Insert subject here) [message #289845 ] Fr, 23 Juni 2006 06:10
Elder1  
On Wed, 31 May 2006 10:58:27 -0400, a collection of particles arranged in
such a way as to form a person that we would recognise as Orjan Westin,
influenced tha intarweb to propagate the following:

> Puck wrote:
>> René wrote:
>>> On 2006-05-31 06:44:54 -0500, Torak <perry_awm [at] hotmail.com> said:
>>>
>>>> Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> You could install Linux. :-)
>>>>
>>>> ...and without compromising functionality.
>>>
>>> Get a Mac :-)
>>
>> Yes, and then prevent viruses from getting on your hard drive by
>> sticking a big magnet to it.
>>
>> You did read the line about functionality, right? OSX is to Lunux what
>> Ed Wood is to Hitchcock.
>
> Bah!
>
> Give me AmigaOS 2.1 any day. If we're going to have the big OS war,
> complete with Open/Closed Source ideological sniping without regards for
> the actual needs and preferences different people have, I want to be
> armed with something small, fast, efficient and powerful.
>
> The vintage geek value is an added bonus. AmigaOS is to Linux what
> Gimli is to Treebeard.
>
> Getshoor torches an' pitchforks 'ere! Buy three, pay for four!
>
> Orjan
AREXX rocks!|ed! I have yet to encounter any language (ok, scripting
language) with such capability. 0 to workbench in one floppy (ok apple,
add a DTP app) </zealot>
I loved that machine!(grabbing coat and running spikes)
C:\>
--
"Where do want to go today?" "I'm thinking http://gentoo.org"
Re: [I] Gaaaah! (Insert subject here) [message #289866 ] Do, 22 Juni 2006 18:37
Arthur Hagen  
On Fri, 2006-06-23 at 00:10 -0400, Elder1 wrote:
> On Wed, 31 May 2006 10:58:27 -0400, a collection of particles arranged in
> such a way as to form a person that we would recognise as Orjan Westin,
> influenced tha intarweb to propagate the following:
>
> > Give me AmigaOS 2.1 any day.
>
> AREXX rocks!|ed! I have yet to encounter any language (ok, scripting
> language) with such capability. 0 to workbench in one floppy (ok apple,
> add a DTP app) </zealot>

Being an old Amiga hand, I hate to tell you that ARexx was one of the
few things I really disliked. Too slow, memory hungry and abstracting,
in my opinion -- like Visual Basic (spit!) for the Amiga.
I also disliked MUI for pretty much the same reasons -- slowness, bloat
and abstraction.

> I loved that machine!(grabbing coat and running spikes)

Me too. I spent years programming for the Amiga, mostly in C and
assembly, including system utilities, optimised drivers and OS hacks,
virus killers and newsreaders, and even hotel TV systems. I loved the
Amiga -- especially the original A1000 and the 50 MHz 68030 A3000.

Regards,
--
*Art
Vorheriges Thema:[I]A DW question, or two
Nächstes Thema:[I] VIsual & Performing Arts in SF & Fantasy
Gehe zu:
  


aktuelle Zeit: Sa Mai 26 06:45:59 CEST 2012

Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,11983 Sekunden
.:: Startseite - Hinweise - Impressum ::.

Powered