Webmaster forum - False allegations and libel

Author

False allegations and libel

Matt Probert

2007-01-27, 11:07 pm

In August 2005 I purchased the Best Tool Bars Toolbar Studio so as to
produce an Internet Explorer add-on toolbar for my web site.

Yesterday, it was pointed out to me that McAfee report that my toolbar
contains an Adware trojan, and further I discovered that at least one
person is publicly saying not to use my web site because it contains
at least one piece of dangerous software.

Naturally, this is a very damaging accusation. Particularly since it
is untrue!

I reported the matter to both McAfee and to Softomate (the company
that produces the toolbar studio) and this was the response from
Softomate:

"Our source code does not have any spyware/virus built in. You
can verify this by reviewing it. Or asking any third party to review
our source code. So the identification is happening in error.
The DLL was being identified by spyware programs by set of
several factors like: CLSID of main class, GUID of type library, GUID
of interface ActiveX object, filename, filesize and several other
Antispyware applications keep record of numerous combinations and
even some ranges of CLSID's or GUID's are blacklisted (due to several
spyware apps done)."

It is infuriating that companies can get away with making such
serious, and yet false, claims about another. Of course I could sue,
but does anyone really think I can afford to fly to the USA, engage a
team of lawyers and take on the McAfee corporation?

Matt

Sally Thompson

2007-01-27, 11:07 pm

On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 09:09:16 +0000, Matt Probert wrote
(in article <45ab439b.8316328@news.freenetname.co.uk> ):

> In August 2005 I purchased the Best Tool Bars Toolbar Studio so as to
> produce an Internet Explorer add-on toolbar for my web site.
>
> Yesterday, it was pointed out to me that McAfee report that my toolbar
> contains an Adware trojan, and further I discovered that at least one
> person is publicly saying not to use my web site because it contains
> at least one piece of dangerous software.

<snip>
> It is infuriating that companies can get away with making such
> serious, and yet false, claims about another. Of course I could sue,
> but does anyone really think I can afford to fly to the USA, engage a
> team of lawyers and take on the McAfee corporation?

As an alternative to taking on McAfee, would it be helpful if you put a
simple factual statement on your home page explaining that McAfee's report is
in error and there are no Adware trojans/spyware etc and that this can be
verified?

--
Sally in Shropshire, UK
bed and breakfast near Ludlow: http://www.stonybrook-ludlow.co.uk
Burne-Jones/William Morris window in Shropshire church:
http://www.whitton-stmarys.org.uk

Fat Sam

2007-01-27, 11:07 pm

Matt Probert wrote:
> In August 2005 I purchased the Best Tool Bars Toolbar Studio so as to
> produce an Internet Explorer add-on toolbar for my web site.
>
> Yesterday, it was pointed out to me that McAfee report that my toolbar
> contains an Adware trojan, and further I discovered that at least one
> person is publicly saying not to use my web site because it contains
> at least one piece of dangerous software.
>
> Naturally, this is a very damaging accusation. Particularly since it
> is untrue!
>
> I reported the matter to both McAfee and to Softomate (the company
> that produces the toolbar studio) and this was the response from
> Softomate:
>
> "Our source code does not have any spyware/virus built in. You
> can verify this by reviewing it. Or asking any third party to review
> our source code. So the identification is happening in error.
> The DLL was being identified by spyware programs by set of
> several factors like: CLSID of main class, GUID of type library, GUID
> of interface ActiveX object, filename, filesize and several other
> Antispyware applications keep record of numerous combinations and
> even some ranges of CLSID's or GUID's are blacklisted (due to several
> spyware apps done)."
>
> It is infuriating that companies can get away with making such
> serious, and yet false, claims about another. Of course I could sue,
> but does anyone really think I can afford to fly to the USA, engage a
> team of lawyers and take on the McAfee corporation?
>
> Matt

Is there anyone in the group who has particular expertise in system
security, or who works in the AV field who would be prepared to write a
short report that you can publish on your site, testifying that the software
is virus free?
It seema absolutely ludicrous to me that you would be responsible for
spreading virii Matt.

--
http://www.norfolklupus.co.uk
http://www.flickr.com/photos/40919519@N00/

Andy Dingley

2007-01-27, 11:07 pm

Matt Probert wrote:

> but does anyone really think I can afford to fly to the USA, engage a
> team of lawyers and take on the McAfee corporation?

I really hope not, because they're either quite right, or they have a
strongly defensible position for being in the right.

You purchased a toolbar development kit. Now if I understand your post
correctly, this contains some form of ActiveX component or similar
technology that involves a GUID. Your own code doesn't generate any
such GUID, partly as a consequence of its "simplifying toolbox" nature,
thus allowing you to write new toolbars in a lightweight scripting
language that doesn't concern itself with such things.

The problem is that this same toolbar development toolkit is also
useful for writing evil toolbars. Just the same advantage it gives you
it would also give to some script kiddie. As a result, anything
produced by this kit has to be judged as suspicious -- which McAfee is
doing, and is quite reasonable to do.

I'm not suggesting that your toolbar is dangerous, that the toolbar dev
kit is dangerous, or even that a large proportion of toolbars developed
with it are dangerous. However if some dangerous products use it (or
even if there's a likelihood that some will use it in the future), and
this toolbar kit contains an easily identifiable GUID that's thus far
more recognisable and judgeable than anything based on script source
alone, then McAfee have acted in a reasonable way by tarring all such
products with the same brush.

The sad fact is that script kiddies have made it impractical to use
toolkits to develop powerful tools, because of this problem of false
positives. It's not McAfee's fault, it's not the dev kit maker's fault,
it's just a consequence of the technology and the evil behaviour of a
minority. As to your own wasted investment, then I'd suggest that has
to be laid at the door of your procurement process, for not
investigating this issue first.

Matt Probert

2007-01-27, 11:07 pm

On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 11:33:18 +0000, Sally Thompson
<sallynewsgroup@yahoo.co.uk.invalid> wrote:

>On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 09:09:16 +0000, Matt Probert wrote
>(in article <45ab439b.8316328@news.freenetname.co.uk> ):
>
>
><snip>
>
>As an alternative to taking on McAfee, would it be helpful if you put a
>simple factual statement on your home page explaining that McAfee's report is
>in error and there are no Adware trojans/spyware etc and that this can be
>verified?
>

And you would believe "Matt Probert" over the McAfee corporation?

I doubt it.

Matt

Matt Probert

2007-01-27, 11:07 pm

On 15 Jan 2007 03:47:37 -0800, "Andy Dingley" <dingbat@codesmiths.com>
wrote:

>
>Matt Probert wrote:
>
>
>I really hope not, because they're either quite right, or they have a
>strongly defensible position for being in the right.

Nonsense. Are you suggesting that any site which has PERL scripts
should be labeled as "virus infected" and as such "should be avoided"
just because some people use PERL to write malicious software?

The facts are:

1) The Probert Encyclopaedia toolbar is not virus/trojan infected

2) McAfee falsely claim that it is

3) Joe Public will accept McAfee's statement as fact, with the
resulting damage to my reputation and integrity - a classic example of
libel.

Matt

Matt Probert

2007-01-27, 11:07 pm

On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 11:48:49 GMT, "Fat Sam"
<samandjanetknox@tessco.net> wrote:
>Is there anyone in the group who has particular expertise in system
>security, or who works in the AV field who would be prepared to write a
>short report that you can publish on your site, testifying that the software
>is virus free?

I spent years as an under cover investigator in the AV field. I
uncovered some very unpalatable truths about the AV companies of the
time. However, given the choice between believing me and the McAfee
corporation who would your wife believe?

>It seema absolutely ludicrous to me that you would be responsible for
>spreading virii Matt.

Thanks, Sam. Unfortunately, to a stranger I am just another nobody,
and mud sticks.

Matt

Karl Groves

2007-01-27, 11:07 pm

comments@probertencyclopaedia.com (Matt Probert) wrote in
news:45ab7156.20022843@news.freenetname.co.uk:

> 3) Joe Public will accept McAfee's statement as fact, with the
> resulting damage to my reputation and integrity - a classic example of
> libel.

You're exactly right.
You really have nowhere to go except to find someone to make a new toolbar
that isn't susceptible to such problems.

The response you received (quoted in your OP) seems to suggest the authors
of the toolbar knew about the problem. I'd be infuriated that a) they
never told you until you contacted them and b) they didn't offer to fix it
for you.

--
Karl Groves
http://karlcore.com
http://chevelle.karlcore.com

Andy Dingley

2007-01-27, 11:07 pm

Matt Probert wrote:

> Nonsense. Are you suggesting that any site which has PERL scripts
> should be labeled as "virus infected" and as such "should be avoided"
> just because some people use PERL to write malicious software?

Perl is definitley not comparable here.

Perl can be used in three obvious ways: As a server-side language, as
a client-side shell language and as a client-side scripting languge
(PerlScript under IE is comparable to either JScript or VBScript,
albeit less commonly installed).

The server-side language is irrelevant here.

The client-side shell language is clearly hazardous (as is any .exe)
and the protection against such is my controlling their download and
automatic execution. This mechanism is independent of the content of
the .exe, it just treats all .exes as a threat.

The client-side scripting language is directly comparable to JScript.
The run-time environment for JavaScript is sandboxed so as to be
inherently safe. It's not possible to write a script that causes harm
because it's demonstrably impossible for any script to cause harm.

JScript (and any of IE's *Script languages) is less clear-cut, because
it also allows COM or ActiveX components to be instantiated and these
are potentially hazardous. PerlScript is exactly comparable here. We
can't prove that a script is safe by automatically analysing it, but we
can raise a suspicion if it references (by GUID) a COM component that
allows the sandbox to be breached. If such a component is used, then
it's quite reasonable to flag such a script in the general case as
risky, even if we have no further knowledge of the specific features
that script carries out.

> 1) The Probert Encyclopaedia toolbar is not virus/trojan infected

No-one is claiming this. I doubt _very_ much if McAfee's claim suggests
anything of the sort, even if it were commonly mis-read to imply so. If
I offered such a detector then it would be carefully phrased by a team
of legal weasels such as "Suspicious signature found" rather than "This
is a virus and Probert is a crook for sending it to you".

> 2) McAfee falsely claim that it is

Just exactly _what_ do they claim? Please tell us, for the sake of a
more accurate discussion.

> 3) Joe Public will accept McAfee's statement as fact, with the
> resulting damage to my reputation and integrity - a classic example of
> libel.

That's perhaps an example of libel, but it's not the definition of
libel, nor the legal necessities to prove such a case.

I can't help wondering if you shouldn't be more concerned about this
http://david-pye.com/probert/index.php

Toby Inkster

2007-01-27, 11:08 pm

Matt Probert wrote:

> And you would believe "Matt Probert" over the McAfee corporation?

Perhaps you could include links to McAfee's competitors, mentioning that
your toolbar can be checked and verified spyware free by using any of them.

That changes the situation from:

McAfee
-vs-
Matt Probert

to

McAfee
-vs-
Matt Probert + Symantec + Blah + Blah...

Also, perhaps you could find some kind soul experienced in Win32
programming who could rewrite your toolbar for you, minus development kit.

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact

Matt-the-Hoople

2007-01-27, 11:08 pm

On 15 Jan 2007, from the relative safety of an aluminum foil deflector
beanie, Andy Dingley put down the rubber duck and exclaimed in
alt.www.webmaster:

> I can't help wondering if you shouldn't be more concerned about this
> http://david-pye.com/probert/index.php

Yipes!!!!

complaints to:

Registrant:

BlueHost.Com, POWERFUL WEB HOSTING - 15GB Disc - 400GB Transfer

** FREE DOMAIN REGISTRATION **

1548 N Technology Way, #D13

Orem, Utah 84097

United States

Registered through: BlueHost.Com

Domain Name: DAVID-PYE.COM

Created on: 11-Jun-06

Expires on: 11-Jun-07

Last Updated on: 11-Jun-06

Administrative Contact:

BlueHost.Com, INC - ONLY 6.95 PER MONTH whois@bluehost.com

BlueHost.Com, POWERFUL WEB HOSTING - 15GB Disc - 400GB Transfer

** FREE DOMAIN REGISTRATION **

1548 N Technology Way, #D13

Orem, Utah 84097

United States

+1.8017659400 Fax -- +1.8017651992

Technical Contact:

BlueHost.Com, INC - ONLY 6.95 PER MONTH whois@bluehost.com

BlueHost.Com, POWERFUL WEB HOSTING - 15GB Disc - 400GB Transfer

** FREE DOMAIN REGISTRATION **

1548 N Technology Way, #D13

Orem, Utah 84097

United States

+1.8017659400 Fax -- +1.8017651992

Domain servers in listed order:

NS1.BLUEHOST.COM

NS2.BLUEHOST.COM

--
# www.progressiveindependent.com - of, by and for the people
# be a part of the process - stay informed
# spam_this@honeypot.org
# my mileage always varies

Matt Probert

2007-01-27, 11:08 pm

On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 12:37:46 GMT, Karl Groves
<karl@NOSPAMkarlcore.com> wrote:

>The response you received (quoted in your OP) seems to suggest the authors
>of the toolbar knew about the problem. I'd be infuriated that a) they
>never told you until you contacted them and b) they didn't offer to fix it
>for you.

They did supply a fix. However, the fix includes a new registration
code which naturally I cannot reveal!

However, you are right. Perhaps they should have emailed me with
information about the issue as soon as they knew. Perhaps they did and
I deleted it as spam, but I doubt it.

Matt

Matt Probert

2007-01-27, 11:08 pm

On 15 Jan 2007 06:07:54 -0800, "Andy Dingley" <dingbat@codesmiths.com>
wrote:

>I can't help wondering if you shouldn't be more concerned about this
>http://david-pye.com/probert/index.php
>

I am aware of that. I have asked him to stop. He refuses. I think he's
in Australia, as I remember, its been some years since I contacted
him.

Matt

Matt Probert

2007-01-27, 11:08 pm

On 15 Jan 2007 06:07:54 -0800, "Andy Dingley" <dingbat@codesmiths.com>
wrote:

>
>No-one is claiming this. I doubt _very_ much if McAfee's claim suggests
>anything of the sort, even if it were commonly mis-read to imply so. If
>I offered such a detector then it would be carefully phrased by a team
>of legal weasels such as "Suspicious signature found" rather than "This
>is a virus and Probert is a crook for sending it to you".
>
>
>
>Just exactly _what_ do they claim? Please tell us, for the sake of a
>more accurate discussion.

See for yourself

http://www.siteadvisor.com/sites/pr...f=safe&aff_id=0

"FOUND: Adware-CramToolbar"

In fact, "Adware-Cram" is a well-known trojan (I know I was recently
infected with it) and McAfee is getting a false positive.

Matt

Andy Dingley

2007-01-27, 11:08 pm

Matt Probert wrote:
> http://www.siteadvisor.com/sites/pr...f=safe&aff_id=0

On that basis, I wouldn't trust your toolbar for a moment.

> McAfee is getting a false positive.

McAfee aren't getting a false positive, they're getting a cautious
positive. They correctly identify something that might not be an
attack, but it certainly isn't good. Your site has something on it
which I would not trust, a COM component that _can_ be used by scripts
to install something unpleasant. There are two problems with this:

1. It's impractical to verify any site's scripts, but it's more
practical to verify the powerful COM components that they use. This one
is clearly unsafe and untrustworthy.

2. Even if your site usess this component in a trustworthy manner, it
still causes this risky component to be installed. This _installation_
is itself a significant breach of security. It's far easier (given the
IE security model) to breach security once a component has been
installed (even by an innocent site) than it is to have to cross both
the installation and usage hurdles.

Your complaint isn't with McAfee, it's with any supposedly competent
person who advised you to use this toolbar kit.

Mark Goodge

2007-01-27, 11:08 pm

On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 17:02:48 GMT, Matt Probert put finger to keyboard
and typed:

>On 15 Jan 2007 06:07:54 -0800, "Andy Dingley" <dingbat@codesmiths.com>
>wrote:
>
>
>I am aware of that. I have asked him to stop. He refuses. I think he's
>in Australia, as I remember, its been some years since I contacted
>him.

His website is hosted in the US, though, so if you're prepared to
lower yourself sufficiently you can use the DMCA to get it taken down.

Mark
--
Visit: http://www.CorporateContact.info - phone and email contacts for Amazon, Paypal, eBay and lots of other hard-to-contact organisations
"Too sweet to be sour too nice to be mean"

Steven J. Sobol

2007-01-27, 11:08 pm

In article <shes74-631.ln1@ophelia.g5n.co.uk>, Toby Inkster wrote:
> Matt Probert wrote:
>
>
> Perhaps you could include links to McAfee's competitors, mentioning that
> your toolbar can be checked and verified spyware free by using any of them.

> Also, perhaps you could find some kind soul experienced in Win32
> programming who could rewrite your toolbar for you, minus development kit.

I'd take a look at it, for sure.

McAfee, by the way, is an utter piece of crap. I recommend Grisoft's
AVG for anti-virus (their anti-spyware component is too new for me to
recommend, I don't have data about that program yet) and Ad-Aware and
Spybot Search & Destroy for spyware.

--
Steve Sobol, Professional Geek ** Java/VB/VC/PHP/Perl ** Linux/*BSD/Windows
Victorville, California PGP:0xE3AE35ED

It's all fun and games until someone starts a bonfire in the living room.

Steven J. Sobol

2007-01-27, 11:08 pm

In article <BSJqh.57095$HV6.35372@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net>, Fat Sam wrote:

> Is there anyone in the group who has particular expertise in system
> security, or who works in the AV field who would be prepared to write a
> short report that you can publish on your site, testifying that the software
> is virus free?
> It seema absolutely ludicrous to me that you would be responsible for
> spreading virii Matt.

I'm sure he's not, but his program might contain some suspicious
behaviors, and that's all a malware scanner can generally analyze well,
besides program signatures/footprints. Trust me - $DAYJOB offers a spam-
scanning service, and spam filtering requires a lot of the same things
to be done.

--
Steve Sobol, Professional Geek ** Java/VB/VC/PHP/Perl ** Linux/*BSD/Windows
Victorville, California PGP:0xE3AE35ED

It's all fun and games until someone starts a bonfire in the living room.

Steven J. Sobol

2007-01-27, 11:08 pm

In article <45abb389.36970406@news.freenetname.co.uk>, Matt Probert wrote:
> On 15 Jan 2007 06:07:54 -0800, "Andy Dingley" <dingbat@codesmiths.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> I am aware of that. I have asked him to stop. He refuses. I think he's
> in Australia, as I remember, its been some years since I contacted
> him.

You should probably consider sending a complaint to the hosting company.

The Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) is a US law that, although
it can be used in evil ways, can also be extremely helpful in such a
situation.

--
Steve Sobol, Professional Geek ** Java/VB/VC/PHP/Perl ** Linux/*BSD/Windows
Victorville, California PGP:0xE3AE35ED

It's all fun and games until someone starts a bonfire in the living room.

John Bokma

2007-01-27, 11:08 pm

comments@probertencyclopaedia.com (Matt Probert) wrote:

[ Trojan ]
> And you would believe "Matt Probert" over the McAfee corporation?
>
> I doubt it.

There is quite some software even Open Source, that is marked by McAfee
and co as containing a virus, a trojan, etc.

I would certainly recommend McAfee how this issue can be solved in their
garbage (don't call it like that though).

Also, see if the programmer who made the toolbar can change the entry that
triggers this behavior. Silly enough, it can be a simple string.

--
John Need help with SEO? Get started with a SEO report of your site:

--> http://johnbokma.com/websitedesign/seo-expert-help.html

John Bokma

2007-01-27, 11:08 pm

"Fat Sam" <samandjanetknox@tessco.net> wrote:

> It seema absolutely ludicrous to me that you would be responsible for
> spreading virii Matt.

Plural of virus is viruses. viri is wrong because it's the plural of vir
(man) and virii is something who dropped out of Latin after 1 hour dreamed
up.

--
John Need help with SEO? Get started with a SEO report of your site:

--> http://johnbokma.com/websitedesign/seo-expert-help.html

Karl Groves

2007-01-27, 11:08 pm

John Bokma <john@castleamber.com> wrote in
news:Xns98B99AD327293castleamber@130.133.1.4:

> "Fat Sam" <samandjanetknox@tessco.net> wrote:
>
>
> Plural of virus is viruses. viri is wrong because it's the plural of
> vir (man) and virii is something who dropped out of Latin after 1 hour
> dreamed up.
>

Thanks for posting that, as pedantic as it is. I, too, thought it was
"virii"

Interesting read:
http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Plural_of_virus

--
Karl Groves
http://karlcore.com
http://chevelle.karlcore.com

John Bokma

2007-01-27, 11:08 pm

Karl Groves <karl@NOSPAMkarlcore.com> wrote:

> John Bokma <john@castleamber.com> wrote in
> news:Xns98B99AD327293castleamber@130.133.1.4:
>
>
> Thanks for posting that, as pedantic as it is.

:-D.

> I, too, thought it was
> "virii"

Ages ago I thought it was viri, so no worries there :-)

--
John Need help with SEO? Get started with a SEO report of your site:

--> http://johnbokma.com/websitedesign/seo-expert-help.html

Alex

2007-01-27, 11:08 pm

"Matt Probert" <comments@probertencyclopaedia.com> wrote in message
news:45abb389.36970406@news.freenetname.co.uk...
> On 15 Jan 2007 06:07:54 -0800, "Andy Dingley" <dingbat@codesmiths.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> I am aware of that. I have asked him to stop. He refuses. I think he's
> in Australia, as I remember, its been some years since I contacted
> him.
>
> Matt

Matt, your site seems to offer folks both individual articles and your
entire encyclopaedia for them to post on their site at no cost, provided
they include a copyright notice, etc. What is David Pye doing that you do
not permit?

1100000

2007-01-27, 11:08 pm

"Steven J. Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote:

> McAfee, by the way, is an utter piece of crap. I recommend Grisoft's
> AVG for anti-virus (their anti-spyware component is too new for me to
> recommend, I don't have data about that program yet) and Ad-Aware and
> Spybot Search & Destroy for spyware.

AVG is great. Also try AVG Anti-Spyware (formerly known as "Ewido"). It is
the best scanner that I've found -- originally designed as a "trojan
scanner":
http://free.grisoft.com/

--
http://tips.webdesign10.com/

Matt Probert

2007-01-27, 11:08 pm

On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 23:08:40 GMT, "Alex"
<tuchasoffentisch@_NO_SPAM_XXXXXXXXXX> wrote:

>"Matt Probert" <comments@probertencyclopaedia.com> wrote in message
>news:45abb389.36970406@news.freenetname.co.uk...
>
>Matt, your site seems to offer folks both individual articles and your
>entire encyclopaedia for them to post on their site at no cost, provided
>they include a copyright notice, etc. What is David Pye doing that you do
>not permit?

We don't permit web redistribution of the entire encyclopaedia!

Also, he copied an old version, with out of date contact information
(he may have changed this now).

Matt

Fat Sam

2007-01-27, 11:08 pm

John Bokma wrote:
> "Fat Sam" <samandjanetknox@tessco.net> wrote:
>
>
> Plural of virus is viruses. viri is wrong because it's the plural of
> vir (man) and virii is something who dropped out of Latin after 1
> hour dreamed up.

Aaaah.

Now, can you confirm that the plural of Hippopotamus is still Hippopotomi ?

If it's not then I think I'm probably going quite mad.

Steve

2007-01-27, 11:08 pm

karl@NOSPAMkarlcore.com wrote in message news:
<Xns98B9AE1227EEFkarlkarlcorecom@199.45.49.11> ...
> John Bokma <john@castleamber.com> wrote in
> news:Xns98B99AD327293castleamber@130.133.1.4:
>
>
> Thanks for posting that, as pedantic as it is. I, too, thought it was
> "virii"

You are both wrong, the plural of virus is Windows.

/steve
--
Packetderm, LLC
Web hosting, SSH Tunneling, Proxies, Advanced E-Mail, Privacy
http://www.cotse.net/areyoureadyforus.html

David J. Hennessy

2007-01-27, 11:08 pm

1100000 wrote:
> "Steven J. Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote:
>
>
> AVG is great. Also try AVG Anti-Spyware (formerly known as "Ewido"). It is
> the best scanner that I've found -- originally designed as a "trojan
> scanner":
> http://free.grisoft.com/
>
>

I prefer "OS X" to all of those softwares. That way, I only need to have
one piece of software installed. :-)

--
David J. Hennessy
http://maidix.com/

1100000

2007-01-27, 11:08 pm

"David J. Hennessy" <david@maidix.com> wrote:
> 1100000 wrote:

>
> I prefer "OS X" to all of those softwares. That way, I only need to have
> one piece of software installed. :-)

GNU/Linux here for the most part (no real virus problems), although I've
been stuck in Windows lately due to an unfortunate need for MS Word drawing
tools.

freemont

2007-01-27, 11:08 pm

On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 18:14:45 -0500, 1100000 writ:

> GNU/Linux here for the most part (no real virus problems), although I've
> been stuck in Windows lately due to an unfortunate need for MS Word drawing
> tools.

Won't you find those same drawing tools in OpenOffice?

--
"Because all you of Earth are idiots!"
¯`·..·¯`·-> freemont© <-·¯`·..·¯

Blinky the Shark

2007-01-27, 11:08 pm

freemont wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 18:14:45 -0500, 1100000 writ:
>
>
> Won't you find those same drawing tools in OpenOffice?

Yeah, heaven forbid that one might think to use a *graphics*
application, eh?

--
Blinky RLU 297263
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html

1100000

2007-01-27, 11:08 pm

"freemont" <freemont@spammenotfreemontsoffice.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 18:14:45 -0500, 1100000 writ:
>
>
> Won't you find those same drawing tools in OpenOffice?

No... I've tried it. I love OpenOffice, but it can't do drawing tools as
well as I need them to.

1100000

2007-01-27, 11:08 pm

"Blinky the Shark" <no.spam@box.invalid> wrote:
> freemont wrote:
>
> Yeah, heaven forbid that one might think to use a *graphics*
> application, eh?

Specific needs -- unfortunately has to be Word (drawing on top of the
document text in a compatible format with the programs that the other people
use).

John Bokma

2007-01-27, 11:08 pm

"Fat Sam" <samandjanetknox@tessco.net> wrote:

> Now, can you confirm that the plural of Hippopotamus is still
> Hippopotomi ?

Sure: "Hippopotamuses (hippopotami is also accepted as a plural form by
the OED), " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippopotamus

BTW, I use cactuses on my site, even though a lot of people prefer cacti.
"as a Greek loan into English, the correct plural in English would be
"cactuses"" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cactus#Etymology

Somehow cacti gives me the shivers :-D

--
John Need help with SEO? Get started with a SEO report of your site:

--> http://johnbokma.com/websitedesign/seo-expert-help.html

John Bokma

2007-01-27, 11:08 pm

Steve <steve@invalid.inv> wrote:

> You are both wrong, the plural of virus is Windows.

I am both too old and too educated to even consider that a joke.

--
John Need help with SEO? Get started with a SEO report of your site:

--> http://johnbokma.com/websitedesign/seo-expert-help.html

Steve

2007-01-27, 11:08 pm

john@castleamber.com wrote in message news:
<Xns98BAC0C5986B6castleamber@130.133.1.4> ...
> Steve <steve@invalid.inv> wrote:
>
>
> I am both too old and too educated to even consider that a joke.

Shouldn't lose your sense of humor, it keeps you young. I am probably
older or close if you are over 50, perhaps better educated (unless you
are holding a couple PhDs), and still maintain my sense of humor.

/steve
--
Packetderm, LLC
Web hosting, SSH Tunneling, Proxies, Advanced E-Mail, Privacy
http://www.cotse.net/areyoureadyforus.html

John Bokma

2007-01-27, 11:08 pm

Steve <steve@invalid.inv> wrote:

> john@castleamber.com wrote in message news:
> <Xns98BAC0C5986B6castleamber@130.133.1.4> ...
>
> Shouldn't lose your sense of humor, it keeps you young. I am probably
> older or close if you are over 50,

close to 40 :-D.

> perhaps better educated (unless you are holding a couple PhDs),

Nah, just a MSc and a BSc and aware that education is hard to measure by
paper (hence I rarely mention those titles).

> and still maintain my sense of humor.

I am holding my breath for a few nice examples. Oh, and note that I want
to become 50 as well one day ;-)

--
John Need help with SEO? Get started with a SEO report of your site:

--> http://johnbokma.com/websitedesign/seo-expert-help.html

Steve

2007-01-27, 11:08 pm

john@castleamber.com wrote in message news:
<Xns98BAD3CD2EBA0castleamber@130.133.1.4> ...
> Steve <steve@invalid.inv> wrote:
>
>
> close to 40 :-D.
>
>
> Nah, just a MSc and a BSc and aware that education is hard to measure by
> paper (hence I rarely mention those titles).

Education is best measured in life experience. Of course some can
still live life and learn nothing, so perhaps there is no steadfast way
to measure it.

>
> I am holding my breath for a few nice examples.

Ok, so this was a cheap one, but it was there. :)

/steve
--
Packetderm, LLC
Web hosting, SSH Tunneling, Proxies, Advanced E-Mail, Privacy
http://www.cotse.net/areyoureadyforus.html

Gwin

2007-01-27, 11:08 pm

Matt Probert wrote:
> In August 2005 I purchased the Best Tool Bars Toolbar Studio so as to
> produce an Internet Explorer add-on toolbar for my web site.
>
> Yesterday, it was pointed out to me that McAfee report that my toolbar
> contains an Adware trojan, and further I discovered that at least one
> person is publicly saying not to use my web site because it contains
> at least one piece of dangerous software.
>
> Naturally, this is a very damaging accusation. Particularly since it
> is untrue!
>
> I reported the matter to both McAfee and to Softomate (the company
> that produces the toolbar studio) and this was the response from
> Softomate:
>
> "Our source code does not have any spyware/virus built in. You
> can verify this by reviewing it. Or asking any third party to review
> our source code. So the identification is happening in error.
> The DLL was being identified by spyware programs by set of
> several factors like: CLSID of main class, GUID of type library, GUID
> of interface ActiveX object, filename, filesize and several other
> Antispyware applications keep record of numerous combinations and
> even some ranges of CLSID's or GUID's are blacklisted (due to several
> spyware apps done)."
>
> It is infuriating that companies can get away with making such
> serious, and yet false, claims about another. Of course I could sue,
> but does anyone really think I can afford to fly to the USA, engage a
> team of lawyers and take on the McAfee corporation?
>
> Matt

i could say you're a mamby pamby who couldn't find his way out of a
javascript function, but i'd hate to see you on my door step with
papers saying my horse now belongs to you!

fuk em is what i say. mcaffee and norton are the absolute XXXXups when
it comes to reporting jscript as virii.

remember when they also said eversoft's stuff had an issue?

same shit, different day

John Bokma

2007-01-27, 11:08 pm

Steve <steve@invalid.inv> wrote:

> john@castleamber.com wrote in message news:

[..]

>
> Education is best measured in life experience. Of course some can
> still live life and learn nothing, so perhaps there is no steadfast
> way to measure it.

Yup I guess we agree :-)

>
>
> Ok, so this was a cheap one, but it was there. :)

Nah, I think that Microsoft bashing got old when Windows 98 got released.
Not saying that it was a good thing, but just saying that by then I
realised that each OS I had been using had flaws.

--
John Need help with SEO? Get started with a SEO report of your site:

--> http://johnbokma.com/websitedesign/seo-expert-help.html

Chaddy2222

2007-01-27, 11:08 pm

Gwin wrote:
> Matt Probert wrote:
>
> i could say you're a mamby pamby who couldn't find his way out of a
> javascript function, but i'd hate to see you on my door step with
> papers saying my horse now belongs to you!
>

Hahaha.
I new there was a reason why I didn't buy a horse when I was younger.
(Oh hang on, it's another one of these bloody metaforical situations).

> fuk em is what i say. mcaffee and norton are the absolute XXXXups when
> it comes to reporting jscript as virii.
>
> remember when they also said eversoft's stuff had an issue?
>
> same shit, different day
Yep, Norton is / was so shite that my Uni's Firewall corrupted the live
update function.
I have gone back to AVG for Anti-Virus checking and I have the
anti-spyware app from them as well. Although, I prefer an App called
Perfect Process Shield. (I think I buggerd up the spelling though).
But PPS is a great progie, it alerts you whenever a program goes to
change a setting on your PC, even when your Internet Homepage changes.
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.cjb.cc

Dylan Parry

2007-01-27, 11:08 pm

John Bokma wrote:

> Somehow cacti gives me the shivers :-D

Perhaps it's because it sounds like a neck garment in poor taste?

--
Dylan Parry
http://electricfreedom.org | http://webpageworkshop.co.uk

Programming, n: A pastime similar to banging one's head
against a wall, but with fewer opportunities for reward.

SpaceGirl

2007-01-27, 11:08 pm

Matt Probert wrote:

> In August 2005 I purchased the Best Tool Bars Toolbar Studio so as to
> produce an Internet Explorer add-on toolbar for my web site.
>
> Yesterday, it was pointed out to me that McAfee report that my toolbar
> contains an Adware trojan, and further I discovered that at least one
> person is publicly saying not to use my web site because it contains
> at least one piece of dangerous software.
>
> Naturally, this is a very damaging accusation. Particularly since it
> is untrue!
>
> I reported the matter to both McAfee and to Softomate (the company
> that produces the toolbar studio) and this was the response from
> Softomate:
>
> "Our source code does not have any spyware/virus built in. You
> can verify this by reviewing it. Or asking any third party to review
> our source code. So the identification is happening in error.
> The DLL was being identified by spyware programs by set of
> several factors like: CLSID of main class, GUID of type library, GUID
> of interface ActiveX object, filename, filesize and several other
> Antispyware applications keep record of numerous combinations and
> even some ranges of CLSID's or GUID's are blacklisted (due to several
> spyware apps done)."
>
> It is infuriating that companies can get away with making such
> serious, and yet false, claims about another. Of course I could sue,
> but does anyone really think I can afford to fly to the USA, engage a
> team of lawyers and take on the McAfee corporation?
>
> Matt

I've read this thread and to be honest, while unfortunate I don't think
you should take on McAfee even if you could. McAfee have done nothing
wrong - it's the folks who built the toolbar you need to talk to. The
problem is if you go down the path of suing virus protection software
publishers for every false positive, you're going to put the free AV
companies out of business. AntiVirus is critical for Windows users, a
sad fact of the world. It's up to YOU to test your software does not
fall foul of 3rd party software. It should be part of your system
testing and user testing. If Microsoft were to change something in a
patch for Windows XP that stopped a bit of software from running
(accidentally), should you sue Microsoft? If a manufacturer changes a
video card driver, should you sue them if you machine doesn't run a
particular game? If while trying to prevent a nasty strain of virus an
AV company accidentally brands a bit of software as virus, should you
sue them? Another question: How is it possible for McAfee or any other
AV company to test every single piece of software on the planet to make
sure there are no false-positives? It's just not possible.

Matt Probert

2007-01-27, 11:08 pm

On 17 Jan 2007 01:57:27 -0800, "SpaceGirl"
<nothespacegirlspam@subhuman.net> wrote:

> It's up to YOU to test your software does not
>fall foul of 3rd party software.

Crap.

AV companies have a legal responsibility NOT to make false
allegations.

My software does NOT contain an Adware trojan. No one should claim it
does.

Before making allegations companies should check their facts. Remember
I am not talking about a scanner in someone's home making a false
positive on a piece of software, I am talking about a company falsely
naming and shaming my web site and my software on their web site.

Despite contacting McAfee they refuse to respond.

There is a big difference between malicious libel and programming
errors.

Matt

SpaceGirl

2007-01-27, 11:08 pm

Matt Probert wrote:

> On 17 Jan 2007 01:57:27 -0800, "SpaceGirl"
> <nothespacegirlspam@subhuman.net> wrote:
>
>
> Crap.

I think it's a valid point; how can any AV company test every bit of
software?

> AV companies have a legal responsibility NOT to make false
> allegations.

I bet they don't. Has anyone successfully sued an AV company for false
positives yet?

> My software does NOT contain an Adware trojan. No one should claim it
> does.

Of course, but I dont know how else they could manage the process
automatically. Under Windows ANY program at ANY time could become
infected. Does that mean they have to validate every single Windows
program on the planet... just in case?

> Before making allegations companies should check their facts. Remember
> I am not talking about a scanner in someone's home making a false
> positive on a piece of software, I am talking about a company falsely
> naming and shaming my web site and my software on their web site.
>
> Despite contacting McAfee they refuse to respond.

Which is pretty horrific. There's no excuse for them not responding;
I'd have thought though it should be the company that made the software
that should be hammering McAfee... blah anyway.

> There is a big difference between malicious libel and programming
> errors.

Sadly, I'd also (personally) advice folks to NEVER install custom
toolbars, regardless where they come from. They are pretty much one of
the easiest ways of introducing a trojan onto a Windows machine. Pretty
much all the bars out there collect stats on your surfing too, unless
you hack them. Don't know if yours does or not, I've not looked at it.

Hope McAffee gets back to you :( Have you checked with other scanners
too?

SpaceGirl

2007-01-27, 11:08 pm

Matt Probert wrote:

> On 17 Jan 2007 01:57:27 -0800, "SpaceGirl"
> <nothespacegirlspam@subhuman.net> wrote:
>
>
> Crap.
>
> AV companies have a legal responsibility NOT to make false
> allegations.
>
> My software does NOT contain an Adware trojan. No one should claim it
> does.
>
> Before making allegations companies should check their facts. Remember
> I am not talking about a scanner in someone's home making a false
> positive on a piece of software, I am talking about a company falsely
> naming and shaming my web site and my software on their web site.
>
> Despite contacting McAfee they refuse to respond.
>
> There is a big difference between malicious libel and programming
> errors.
>
> Matt

Also says on their site:

"In our tests, we found downloads on this site that some people
consider adware, spyware, or other unwanted programs."

That's pretty vague. Maybe enough squirming room for them to say "hey,
people MAY consider... we never said it was or wasn't spyware" :(
Really, really sucky.

Andy Dingley

2007-01-27, 11:08 pm

Matt Probert wrote:

> AV companies have a legal responsibility NOT to make false
> allegations.

No, but that's a matter of legal nicety. They don't have any specific
responsibilities at all, other than to obey the law and not injure
other parties. If you claim they've injured you by libel, then that's a
long chain of proof you have to demonstrate. You have failed to do
this, and they also have a strong defence of truth against the possible
lesser claim.

> My software does NOT contain an Adware trojan. No one should claim it
> does.

No one does. McAfee claims that it is suspicious because of things that
it demonstrably does contain.

> I am talking about a company falsely
> naming and shaming my web site and my software on their web site.

What is specifically false about what they claim? I certainly wouldn't
go near your toolbar because I consider it to be a significant security
threat, even though I accept your innocence in this and your own lack
of malicious intent.

Installing your toolbar makes my machines significantly less secure. I
want to be warned about hazards like that!

Steve

2007-01-27, 11:08 pm

john@castleamber.com wrote in message news:
<Xns98BAE9112E461castleamber@130.133.1.4> ...
> Steve <steve@invalid.inv> wrote:
>
>
> [..]
>
>
> Yup I guess we agree :-)

We certainly do :)

>
>
> Nah, I think that Microsoft bashing got old when Windows 98 got released.
> Not saying that it was a good thing, but just saying that by then I
> realised that each OS I had been using had flaws.

Yes, an inconvenient truth is easy for most to wave off as simple
bashing. And as you say every OS does have flaws, but the simple fact
of the matter is, that for whatever reason you want to ascribe
(popularly, uneducated end users, root flaws in the design, etc)
Windows carries the majority of viruses today. This will likely change
in the future, but it is an established fact today, whether or not you
are capable of acknowledging it. :)

/steve
--
Packetderm, LLC
Web hosting, SSH Tunneling, Proxies, Advanced E-Mail, Privacy
http://www.cotse.net/areyoureadyforus.html

Steve

2007-01-27, 11:08 pm

steve@invalid.inv wrote in message news:<MPG.20181acfffce5fc1989824
@news.newsreader.com> ...
> john@castleamber.com wrote in message news:
> <Xns98BAE9112E461castleamber@130.133.1.4> ...
>
> We certainly do :)
>
>
> Yes, an inconvenient truth is easy for most to wave off as simple
> bashing. And as you say every OS does have flaws, but the simple fact
> of the matter is, that for whatever reason you want to ascribe
> (popularly, uneducated end users, root flaws in the design, etc)
> Windows carries the majority of viruses today. This will likely change
> in the future, but it is an established fact today, whether or not you
> are capable of acknowledging it. :)

Wow, that came out sounding snotty. Sorry, was not my intention to
imply you weren't capable.

/steve
--
Packetderm, LLC
Web hosting, SSH Tunneling, Proxies, Advanced E-Mail, Privacy
http://www.cotse.net/areyoureadyforus.html

John Bokma

2007-01-27, 11:08 pm

Steve <steve@invalid.inv> wrote:

> Yes, an inconvenient truth is easy for most to wave off as simple
> bashing. And as you say every OS does have flaws, but the simple fact
> of the matter is, that for whatever reason you want to ascribe
> (popularly, uneducated end users, root flaws in the design, etc)
> Windows carries the majority of viruses today. This will likely
> change in the future, but it is an established fact today, whether or
> not you are capable of acknowledging it. :)

I have no problem acknowledging it. I recently read "Rising Sun", and
John Conner (hope I remember his name correctly" said something along
the lines that in Japan it's:

Don't try to blame someone for the XXXX up, but let's find a way
together how we can stop the XXXX up.

In my opinion Microsoft has done that with IE7, and is trying with Vista
(I haven't used it myself yet, so can't confirm/deny this).

By now everybody understand that Microsoft has a problem. The thing is
that most people take their OS very personal. Talk with some Mac /
GNU/Linux users and you know what I mean (I am sure you already do ;-)
).

So if you keep saying to people: Windows is XXXXed up, to (probably a
majority of) the user base saying: you are a XXXX up. You are
ridiculing their decision, and telling them they are idiots in their
face. And what do people do when they here constantly that they are XXXX
ups? They defend their decision, or press the ignore button. Mostly the
latter.

If I want a good laugh, I just imagine a fanboy trying to convince my
mom to switch to GNU/Linux. Works better that the public is wearing no
clothes when you have to give a public talk.

Stuff like Windows suckz, M$, Internet Exploder and all the countless
other ways of showing contempt are not going to solve a single issue at
hand. Quite some people bash MS (or should I write M$) on auto pilot,
and some of those stopped using the OS in the previous century but yet
"know" what's wrong with XP.

I have a strong feeling that one of the major reasons GNU/Linux hasn't
made it to "the desktop" yet, and probably won't in the coming 5 years,
if ever, is because a lot of their "marketing" consist in too hard
showing how bad Windows is, and too hard cloning each and every part of
Microsoft's [1] succes except the marketing...

Note: all my opinion, etc. And no offense taken BTW (I read the foot
note you posted in reply to the post I am replying to)

[1] Well, or Apple's. One thing I don't like about the GNU/Linux thing
is that it's kernel and eye candy [2] is up to date, or even ahead of
time, but functionality of a lot of applications are a few years behind
the applications they are "alternatives to".

[2] as in effects, another draw back of the Linux Desktop is in my
opinion the lack of a good design team.

--
John Need help with SEO? Get started with a SEO report of your site:

--> http://johnbokma.com/websitedesign/seo-expert-help.html

Baho Utot

2007-01-27, 11:09 pm

John Bokma wrote:

[putolin]

> I have a strong feeling that one of the major reasons GNU/Linux hasn't
> made it to "the desktop" yet, and probably won't in the coming 5 years,
> if ever, is because a lot of their "marketing" consist in too hard
> showing how bad Windows is, and too hard cloning each and every part of
> Microsoft's [1] succes except the marketing...
>
> Note: all my opinion, etc. And no offense taken BTW (I read the foot
> note you posted in reply to the post I am replying to)
>
>
> [1] Well, or Apple's. One thing I don't like about the GNU/Linux thing
> is that it's kernel and eye candy [2] is up to date, or even ahead of
> time, but functionality of a lot of applications are a few years behind
> the applications they are "alternatives to".
>
> [2] as in effects, another draw back of the Linux Desktop is in my
> opinion the lack of a good design team.
>
>

You just don't understand open source/ Linux do you.

--
Dancin in the ruins tonight
Tayo'y Mga Pinoy

John Bokma

2007-01-27, 11:09 pm

Baho Utot <scrat@bildanet.com> wrote:

If I want to hear clueless fanboy crap I give you a call Baho.

--
John Need help with SEO? Get started with a SEO report of your site:

--> http://johnbokma.com/websitedesign/seo-expert-help.html

Baho Utot

2007-01-27, 11:09 pm

John Bokma wrote:

> Baho Utot <scrat@bildanet.com> wrote:
>
> If I want to hear clueless fanboy crap I give you a call Baho.
>
>

I see you are still a moron.

--
Dancin in the ruins tonight
Tayo'y Mga Pinoy

John Bokma

2007-01-27, 11:09 pm

Baho Utot <scrat@bildanet.com> wrote:

> I see you are still a moron.

And you still the ignorant fanboy. Did you finally read up on the subject
of micro kernels? Or still clueless?

--
John Need help with SEO? Get started with a SEO report of your site:

--> http://johnbokma.com/websitedesign/seo-expert-help.html

wayne

2007-01-27, 11:09 pm

John Bokma wrote:
> Baho Utot <scrat@bildanet.com> wrote:
>
> If I want to hear clueless fanboy crap I give you a call Baho.
>
>
John, are you one of those that are tied to MS because you think you can
make more money that way?

I make a living using MS (programmer) but the software sucks. With a
*nix box you don't have to reboot once a week (recommended by the tech
support of our process control system). Corporations buy it because of
the huge installed base would be expensive to replace. Eventually I see
more businesses moving to open source.

--
Wayne
www.glenmeadows.us
"I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his
creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short,
who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the
individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor
such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotism." [Einstein]

Chaddy2222

2007-01-27, 11:09 pm

Matt Probert wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 23:08:40 GMT, "Alex"
> <tuchasoffentisch@_NO_SPAM_XXXXXXXXXX> wrote:
>
>
> We don't permit web redistribution of the entire encyclopaedia!
>

Yes, that might be the case, although from reading your site the other
day, people might get the wrong idea.

> Also, he copied an old version, with out of date contact information
> (he may have changed this now).
>
> Matt
You should use the target meta tag (and set your website up so you can
break it out of his frames based layout).
Or if he is useing some kind of PHP script, just block the script from
running.
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.cjb.cc

John Bokma

2007-01-27, 11:09 pm

wayne <houhwx@yahoo.com> wrote:

> John Bokma wrote:
>
> John, are you one of those that are tied to MS because you think you can
> make more money that way?

Nope. Majority of the work I do isn't tied to an OS.

> I make a living using MS (programmer) but the software sucks. With a
> *nix box you don't have to reboot once a week (recommended by the tech
> support of our process control system).

Can they justify that? Or is it just a gut feeling. A lot of people read
magazine on Windows 95 and 98 in the previous century and think that
Windows XP is a kind of Windows 95 that just uses more disk space.

> Corporations buy it because of
> the huge installed base would be expensive to replace. Eventually I see
> more businesses moving to open source.

Yup, I use a lot of OS. Been doing so before it was even called OS.

--
John Need help with SEO? Get started with a SEO report of your site:

--> http://johnbokma.com/websitedesign/seo-expert-help.html

Toby Inkster

2007-01-27, 11:09 pm

Dylan Parry wrote:
> John Bokma wrote:
>
>
> Perhaps it's because it sounds like a neck garment in poor taste?

;-)

If you're wearing cacti around your neck, don't shiver and you'll likely
lose a lot of blood.

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact

Toby Inkster

2007-01-27, 11:09 pm

1100000 wrote:

> GNU/Linux here for the most part (no real virus problems), although I've
> been stuck in Windows lately due to an unfortunate need for MS Word drawing
> tools.

Cheaper than Windows:
http://www.codeweavers.com/products/cxoffice/

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact

1100000

2007-01-27, 11:09 pm

"Toby Inkster" <usenet200701@tobyinkster.co.uk> wrote:
> 1100000 wrote:
>
>
> Cheaper than Windows:
> http://www.codeweavers.com/products/cxoffice/

I've been thinking about it and have been meaning to download the trial
version. Also thought about VMware, but I'm not sure if I can use my
ThinkPad factory install disks with it.

John Bokma

2007-01-27, 11:09 pm

Toby Inkster <usenet200701@tobyinkster.co.uk> wrote:

> Dylan Parry wrote:
>
> ;-)
>
> If you're wearing cacti around your neck, don't shiver and you'll likely
> lose a lot of blood.

Yup, I can confirm that. My experience with cacti so far in Mexico is that
most of them are painful even during a friendly encounter.

--
John Need help with SEO? Get started with a SEO report of your site:

--> http://johnbokma.com/websitedesign/seo-expert-help.html

nullified

2007-01-27, 11:09 pm

On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 02:46:43 GMT, wayne <houhwx@yahoo.com> wrote:

>John Bokma wrote:
>John, are you one of those that are tied to MS because you think you can
>make more money that way?
>
No. He's just an ignorant opinionated twat.

nullified

2007-01-27, 11:09 pm

On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 19:21:08 -0500, Baho Utot <scrat@bildanet.com>
wrote:

>John Bokma wrote:
>
>
>I see you are still a moron.

Ignore Bokma, he's retarded

wayne

2007-01-27, 11:09 pm

John Bokma wrote:
> wayne <houhwx@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> Nope. Majority of the work I do isn't tied to an OS.
>
>
> Can they justify that? Or is it just a gut feeling. A lot of people read
> magazine on Windows 95 and 98 in the previous century and think that
> Windows XP is a kind of Windows 95 that just uses more disk space.

The engineers are mostly from Germany, so I'm not sure they read those
publications or not. All I know is rebooting does solve many issues
(such as errors when downloading the project to the process servers).

Justify it? I don't know, but I also don't know how MS can justify
selling anti-virus software for their systems. It would seem that they
would provide it as a service pack if they cannot keep virus writers
from infecting their systems.

>
>
> Yup, I use a lot of OS. Been doing so before it was even called OS.
>

--
Wayne
www.glenmeadows.us
"I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his
creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short,
who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the
individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor
such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotism." [Einstein]

John Bokma

2007-01-27, 11:09 pm

wayne <houhwx@yahoo.com> wrote:

> John Bokma wrote:

[ Windows XP ]

> The engineers are mostly from Germany, so I'm not sure they read those
> publications or not. All I know is rebooting does solve many issues
> (such as errors when downloading the project to the process servers).

But is this downloading using MS software or third party?

> Justify it? I don't know, but I also don't know how MS can justify
> selling anti-virus software for their systems. It would seem that they
> would provide it as a service pack if they cannot keep virus writers
> from infecting their systems.

You mean like:
<http://www.microsoft.com/athome/sec...re/default.mspx>
"Windows Defender is a free program that helps protect your computer
against pop-ups, slow performance, and security threats caused by spyware
and other unwanted software. It features Real-Time Protection, a
monitoring system that recommends actions against spyware when it's
detected and minimizes interruptions and helps you stay productive."

"Microsoft's upcoming Windows Vista operating system will also have
Defender included as an /integrated part of the operating system/, and
will be enabled by default."
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Defender> (my emphasis)

Or like:
<http://onecare.live.com/site/en-us/...t.htm?mkt=en-us>

Furthermore, known issues that are targetted by viruses are when possible
closed. Yes, this takes time but it does happen.

--
John Need help with SEO? Get started with a SEO report of your site:

--> http://johnbokma.com/websitedesign/seo-expert-help.html

Steven J. Sobol

2007-01-27, 11:09 pm

In article <Xns98BC4CDC38C4castleamber@130.133.1.4>, John Bokma wrote:

> Can they justify that? Or is it just a gut feeling. A lot of people read
> magazine on Windows 95 and 98 in the previous century and think that
> Windows XP is a kind of Windows 95 that just uses more disk space.

....Which, in defense of M$, it isn't. 2000/XP/2003 are quite stable.

Security is where the problem lies with those OSes.

--
Steve Sobol, Professional Geek ** Java/VB/VC/PHP/Perl ** Linux/*BSD/Windows
Victorville, California PGP:0xE3AE35ED

It's all fun and games until someone starts a bonfire in the living room.

wayne

2007-01-27, 11:09 pm

John Bokma wrote:
> wayne <houhwx@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> But is this downloading using MS software or third party?
>
Third party, using MS tools.
>
> You mean like:
> <http://www.microsoft.com/athome/sec...re/default.mspx>
> "Windows Defender is a free program that helps protect your computer
> against pop-ups, slow performance, and security threats caused by spyware
> and other unwanted software. It features Real-Time Protection, a
> monitoring system that recommends actions against spyware when it's
> detected and minimizes interruptions and helps you stay productive."
>
> "Microsoft's upcoming Windows Vista operating system will also have
> Defender included as an /integrated part of the operating system/, and
> will be enabled by default."
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Defender> (my emphasis)
>

http://blogs.chron.com/techblog/arc...itialize_1.html

> Or like:
> <http://onecare.live.com/site/en-us/...t.htm?mkt=en-us>
>

RESULT: We're sorry. This version of the Windows Live OneCare safety
scanner doesn't work with your Web browser or operating system.

> Furthermore, known issues that are targetted by viruses are when possible
> closed. Yes, this takes time but it does happen.
>
>
You would think MS could find its own bugs and security issues.

http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/co...cle.php/3426731

--
Wayne
www.glenmeadows.us
"I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his
creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short,
who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the
individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor
such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotism." [Einstein]

Toby Inkster

2007-01-27, 11:09 pm

John Bokma wrote:
> wayne <houhwx@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> Can they justify that? Or is it just a gut feeling. A lot of people read
> magazine on Windows 95 and 98 in the previous century and think that
> Windows XP is a kind of Windows 95 that just uses more disk space.

If your Windows XP box has been up for more than, say a fortnight, without
reboot, then the chances are that it's insecure. Microsoft brings out
security patches for Windows on an almost weekly basis. Most of them
require a reboot after installation.

The last critical update was ten days ago, so if you're currently running
a Windows XP box (or Windows 2000/2003) with more than 10 days of uptime,
you're potentially facing a remote code execution exploit.

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact

John Bokma

2007-01-27, 11:09 pm

Toby Inkster <usenet200701@tobyinkster.co.uk> wrote:

> The last critical update was ten days ago, so if you're currently
> running a Windows XP box (or Windows 2000/2003) with more than 10 days
> of uptime, you're potentially facing a remote code execution exploit.

Nah, I turn almost every night my XP box off.

And yes I agree that those required reboots are more then annoying.

--
John Need help with SEO? Get started with a SEO report of your site:

--> http://johnbokma.com/websitedesign/seo-expert-help.html

wayne

2007-01-27, 11:09 pm

Toby Inkster wrote:
> John Bokma wrote:
>
> If your Windows XP box has been up for more than, say a fortnight, without
> reboot, then the chances are that it's insecure. Microsoft brings out
> security patches for Windows on an almost weekly basis. Most of them
> require a reboot after installation.
>
> The last critical update was ten days ago, so if you're currently running
> a Windows XP box (or Windows 2000/2003) with more than 10 days of uptime,
> you're potentially facing a remote code execution exploit.
>

The computers I maintain are a mix of Windows 2000 Server and Windows
2000 Professional and my expectation of them is to be up 24/7/365. They
are on a corporate network only accessible through a firewall. They
still require reboots way to often. The software does not get updated
by MS. Any updates must be evaluated by the company that developed the
control software before it can be installed.

--
Wayne
www.glenmeadows.us
"I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his
creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short,
who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the
individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor
such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotism." [Einstein]

Fat Sam

2007-01-27, 11:09 pm

John Bokma wrote:
> "Fat Sam" <samandjanetknox@tessco.net> wrote:
>
>
> Sure: "Hippopotamuses (hippopotami is also accepted as a plural form
> by the OED), " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippopotamus
>
> BTW, I use cactuses on my site, even though a lot of people prefer
> cacti. "as a Greek loan into English, the correct plural in English
> would be "cactuses"" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cactus#Etymology
>
> Somehow cacti gives me the shivers :-D

What about the plurals of Sheep and Fish?

Is it Sheeps and Fishes, or just Sheep and Fish?

Toby Inkster

2007-01-27, 11:09 pm

Fat Sam wrote:

> Is it Sheeps and Fishes, or just Sheep and Fish?

How about hair? The plural of "hair" is "hairs" for small numbers, but
"hair" for a large collection.

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact

John Bokma

2007-01-27, 11:09 pm

Toby Inkster <usenet200701@tobyinkster.co.uk> wrote:

> Fat Sam wrote:
>
>
> How about hair? The plural of "hair" is "hairs" for small numbers, but
> "hair" for a large collection.

*keeps making notes*

Thanks, keep them coming

--
John Need help with SEO? Get started with a SEO report of your site:

--> http://johnbokma.com/websitedesign/seo-expert-help.html

Joe (GKF)

2007-01-27, 11:09 pm

In article <1169017059.993850.85700@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
spamlovermailbox-sicurity@yahoo.com.au says...

> Yep, Norton is / was so shite that my Uni's Firewall corrupted the live
> update function.
> I have gone back to AVG for Anti-Virus checking and I have the
> anti-spyware app from them as well. Although, I prefer an App called
> Perfect Process Shield. (I think I buggerd up the spelling though).
> But PPS is a great progie, it alerts you whenever a program goes to
> change a setting on your PC, even when your Internet Homepage changes.
>
Chad - have a look at AntiVir Personal (free)
http://www.free-av.com
and Spybot Search & Destroy (free)
http://security.kolla.de/

Mainly, I just wanted to say
IT'S RAINING!!
We had 5mm to 8:00am Friday, 12.5mm to 8:00am today (Saturday).
That's more than we've had since July, and I reckon we'll top the old
inch by tomorrow. Bewdy.

--
Please visit -
Water saving tips: http://graspages.cjb.cc/bigdry/