 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / December 2006dpreview
Is it me, or are the forums on dpreview.com not working? Joe >Is it me, or are the forums on dpreview.com not working? It's you.  SignatureJohn Bean >>Is it me, or are the forums on dpreview.com not working? > > It's you. IAW JB > >>Is it me, or are the forums on dpreview.com not working? > > > > It's you. > > IAW JB Thanks guys. I had a spyware thing that was messing with my browser. It's OK now... Joe > Thanks guys. I had a spyware thing that was messing with my browser. It's OK > now... Have you reinstalled your computer, or are you OK with the fact that your computer is completely compromised and may contain any type and number of malicious programs, from sending spam through your system to sniffing out your social security number? -Wolfgang >> Thanks guys. I had a spyware thing that was messing with my browser. >> It's OK now... [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > -Wolfgang So you "reinstall your computer" every time you detect a bit of spyware? Surely you're not serious. Any decent anti-spyware program should be able to clean you up quite nicely without such drastic measures. SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson >>> Thanks guys. I had a spyware thing that was messing with my browser. >> Have you reinstalled your computer, or are you OK with the fact >> that your computer is completely compromised and may contain any >> type and number of malicious programs, from sending spam through >> your system to sniffing out your social security number? > So you "reinstall your computer" every time you detect a bit of spyware? Installed spyware. Or installed trojans. Or installed viruses. Or installed worms. Not for these mails I do get, which I don't "open" (execute) in first place. (They'd not work anyway, being for a different OS anyway.) On the other hand, I never had any infection or break-in on my system. > Surely you're not serious. Deadly serious. > Any decent anti-spyware program should be able to clean you up quite nicely > without such drastic measures. Only if the code for the spyware has been completely decompiled and _understood_. Unfortunately, that is about never the case. OK, most of these pests do not plant anything deeper, but you _cannot_ know. -Wolfgang > Have you reinstalled your computer, or are you OK with the fact > that your computer is completely compromised and may contain any > type and number of malicious programs, from sending spam through > your system to sniffing out your social security number? Come on, Wolfy. You should be running a properly configured Windows XP installation for bulletproof computing. My XP installation is far more secure and reliable than most *nix installations. You should never have to reinstall anything if you set up properly. Rita > > Have you reinstalled your computer, or are you OK with the fact > > that your computer is completely compromised and may contain any [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > installation for bulletproof computing. My XP installation is far more > secure and reliable than most *nix installations. Sure it is. Are you up to date? http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/MS06-070.mspx Nasty one. Greg >> Come on, Wolfy. You should be running a properly configured Windows >> XP installation for bulletproof computing. My XP installation is [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Nasty one. <YAWN> Totally imune. Rita Have you ever heard of a program called Ghost? http://www.symantec.com/home_homeoffice/products/features.jsp?pcid=br&pvid=ghost10 This program is a real life saver. There is one thing that I hate to do and that is to sit in front of my computer for an entire afternoon to re-install and re-configure all of my programs to my liking. With Ghost, you do it once, then save the entire hard disk into one file that can restore your entire hard disk unattended. It is a great tool and it is well worth the money. I recently had a trojan worm on my computer and none of these virus, anti-spam or adware programs could detect the problem. The problem was definitely there but all of these programs couldn't detect it, even with the latest downloads. I used a program called ZoneAlarm to prove that my system was compromised. I used my ghost program to re-image my hard disk in only 15 minutes while I caught up on some chores. The entire process was painless and unattended. My computer was fully restored and better than ever. ---------------------------------- Rita ? Berkowitz wrote: > >> Come on, Wolfy. You should be running a properly configured Windows > >> XP installation for bulletproof computing. My XP installation is [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Rita > Have you ever heard of a program called Ghost? > http://www.symantec.com/home_homeoffice/products/features.jsp?pcid=br&pvid=ghost10 Yep, I've heard of it many years ago, but never had a use for it since I always done proper backups. And any new installations I did were done from a slipstreamed install disk with all the mods, tweaks, and settings required to make a bulletproof XP installation. Rita > > Have you ever heard of a program called Ghost? http://www.symantec.com/home_homeoffice/products/features.jsp?pcid=br&pvid=ghost10 > Yep, I've heard of it many years ago, but never had a use for it since I > always done proper backups. And any new installations I did were done from > a slipstreamed install disk with all the mods, tweaks, and settings required > to make a bulletproof XP installation. And you've slipstreamed all your apps, too? You're so full of sh.t. Greg >> a slipstreamed install disk with all the mods, tweaks, and settings > required >> to make a bulletproof XP installation. > > And you've slipstreamed all your apps, too? You're so full of sh.t. Why would I? You see, I have full backups, but I can reinstall an application if I really want to. Slipstreaming an OS is great, especially if you want to do your installs unattended and on numerous machines. Aren't you the guy that f.cked up claiming to buy hundreds of NSX chassis Dells? Rita > >> a slipstreamed install disk with all the mods, tweaks, and settings > > required [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Why would I? You see, I have full backups, but I can reinstall an > application if I really want to. And you really think that installing, even slipstreamed, the OS and then recovering from backup is faster than Ghost multicasting? You are out of your mind or you don't manage more than a handful of computers. > Slipstreaming an OS is great, especially > if you want to do your installs unattended and on numerous machines. Aren't > you the guy that f.cked up claiming to buy hundreds of NSX chassis Dells? No, I don't work in sourcing here at G.E. I was dealt hundreds of GX620s in which the Maxtor harddrives are dying at a rate of 3 or 4 a day. Pretty soon we'll have all the bad Maxtors replaced. Greg >>>> a slipstreamed install disk with all the mods, tweaks, and >>>> settings required to make a bulletproof XP installation. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Greg I've had four hard drives fail on my own personal computers over the last few years...and every single failrure was a Maxstor. I have TONS of other hard drives by Western Digital which have never failed. I've lost faith in Maxtor, and likely won't buy one for many many moons... SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson > > No, I don't work in sourcing here at G.E. I was dealt hundreds of > > GX620s in which the Maxtor harddrives are dying at a rate of 3 or 4 a [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I have TONS of other hard drives by Western Digital which have never failed. > I've lost faith in Maxtor, and likely won't buy one for many many moons... Yeah, we had this discussion at work. The funny thing was up until this point Maxtor was the only brand where I hadn't suffered mass failures soon after deployment. Previous to this incident I've had certain model runs of Seagate, IBM (I mean Deathstar), Western Digital, Fujitsu, Hitachi, and Conner fail all at once. Greg > Yeah, we had this discussion at work. The funny thing was up until this > point Maxtor was the only brand where I hadn't suffered mass failures soon > after deployment. Previous to this incident I've had certain model runs of > Seagate, IBM (I mean Deathstar), Western Digital, Fujitsu, Hitachi, and > Conner fail all at once. I've had, knock on wood, 0 (Zero) hard disk failures over the many years I've worked with PC's at work and at home. This includes monsters from the origianl 10 MB IBM PC drives through portables that have been dropped and abused and various disks that I've bought and installed (Maxtor, W-D, Fujitsu, Seagate). The main drive on one of my machines has been there since 1999 and has gone from Win 95 to 98 to XP. It has thrashed like hell and been recycled near daily over all of that time. Sill spinning well. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. > > Yeah, we had this discussion at work. The funny thing was up until this > > point Maxtor was the only brand where I hadn't suffered mass failures soon [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > gone from Win 95 to 98 to XP. It has thrashed like hell and been > recycled near daily over all of that time. Sill spinning well. (Knocking on wood) I've had the same experience at home but no such luck at work. Greg >> Why would I? You see, I have full backups, but I can reinstall an >> application if I really want to. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > are out of your mind or you don't manage more than a handful of > computers. Who said anything about speed? And who said anything about doing a clean install and recovery? It's very rare that you need to do a clean install or "Ghost" unless you don't know what you are doing. > Aren't >> you the guy that f.cked up claiming to buy hundreds of NSX chassis [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > GX620s in which the Maxtor harddrives are dying at a rate of 3 or 4 a > day. Pretty soon we'll have all the bad Maxtors replaced. Yes, I remember the conversation now. It's always someone else's fault for these failing systems. LOL! Rita >> Have you reinstalled your computer, or are you OK with the fact >> that your computer is completely compromised and may contain any >> type and number of malicious programs, from sending spam through >> your system to sniffing out your social security number? > Come on, Wolfy. Wolfgang, if you please. I am _so_ not into short forms of my name. > You should be running a properly configured Windows XP installation Give me one good reason. And tell me, doesn't XP come safely configured out of the box? Isn't it a fact that even while initially downloading the patches from MS you can fairly bet on getting malware in through exactly the cracks you are downloading patches against? > for bulletproof computing. Suuure. Ok, "pull the plug" is fairly bulletproof with most platforms, but not really computing. > My XP installation is far more > secure and reliable than most *nix installations. So what are your qualifications to be able to make such sweeping claims? > You should never have to reinstall anything if you set up properly. You thrust the update to Vista that much? -Wolfgang >> You should be running a properly configured Windows XP installation > > Give me one good reason. Because it is the only real operating system out here. > And tell me, doesn't XP come safely configured out of the box? Nope! And it shouldn't. If you don't know how to properly set up a bulletproof solution you shouldn't be allowed to have or use a computer. > Isn't it a fact that even while initially downloading the patches > from MS you can fairly bet on getting malware in through exactly > the cracks you are downloading patches against? That's a new one on me. Maybe it's like this in your realm >> for bulletproof computing. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > So what are your qualifications to be able to make such > sweeping claims? The facts are the facts. >> You should never have to reinstall anything if you set up properly. > > You thrust the update to Vista that much? Who said anything about Vista? XP is presently the only true operating system available. Once the need for Vista becomes mainstream I will bulletproof it as well. Rita > >> You should be running a properly configured Windows XP installation > > > > Give me one good reason. > > Because it is the only real operating system out here. That's rich. I can name several (imaginary? no) OSes that can be put up on the Internet using a default install and not be owned in under 15 minutes. > > And tell me, doesn't XP come safely configured out of the box? > > Nope! And it shouldn't. If you don't know how to properly set up a > bulletproof solution you shouldn't be allowed to have or use a computer. You ARE a f.cking joke. Any OS should be "Secure by default", there's no reason in this online age for them not to be. Or are you saying that in order to run XP you need to be a security guru? Greg >> Because it is the only real operating system out here. > > That's rich. I can name several (imaginary? no) OSes that can be put > up on the Internet using a default install and not be owned in under > 15 minutes. Probably so, but what good are they if nobody is using them or they don't have real world applications that everyone wants? >> Nope! And it shouldn't. If you don't know how to properly set up a >> bulletproof solution you shouldn't be allowed to have or use a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > there's no reason in this online age for them not to be. Or are you > saying that in order to run XP you need to be a security guru? Hey, you're the one that can't secure an OS; don't blame me for your total ineptness. RTFM and get a clue. Rita > >> Because it is the only real operating system out here. > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Probably so, but what good are they if nobody is using them or they don't > have real world applications that everyone wants? Real world applications? Funny, but I'm not starving for any apps on my OpenBSD T40. > >> Nope! And it shouldn't. If you don't know how to properly set up a > >> bulletproof solution you shouldn't be allowed to have or use a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Hey, you're the one that can't secure an OS And a typical XP user can?!?!?! You get funnier by the post. Greg >> Probably so, but what good are they if nobody is using them or they >> don't have real world applications that everyone wants? > > Real world applications? Funny, but I'm not starving for any apps on > my OpenBSD T40. And exactly how many OpenBSD or Redhat Linux distributions do you see selling preloaded on these consumer machines at Best Buy and Circuit City? >>> You ARE a f.cking joke. Any OS should be "Secure by default", >>> there's no reason in this online age for them not to be. Or are you [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > And a typical XP user can?!?!?! You get funnier by the post. Probably an infinite amount more than the many new novice computer users turning on a new machine for the first time and loading a *nix distribution. That's why Windows was configured this way. After they RTFM then they can secure the damn box. It beats the hell out of not getting it on at all. Then again, some people don't RTFM and blame everyone else for their stupidity. Rita > >> Probably so, but what good are they if nobody is using them or they > >> don't have real world applications that everyone wants? [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Then again, some people don't RTFM and blame everyone else for their > stupidity. Interesting. I can put a default Mac OS X or OpenBSD install directly on the Internet and not have to worry about a thing. It's up to the user to make their system insecure. It's hilarious how you Windows droids just don't get it and think it's ok that you have to secure your OS before you expose it to the Internet. Greg > make their system insecure. It's hilarious how you Windows droids just > don't get it and think it's ok that you have to secure your OS before you > expose it to the Internet. It's hilarious how my Linux system crashed and burned after a USB device failed and would no longer boot. It needed the ministrations of someone who was somehwat expert in Linux to fix. Windows could care less if half of the non-essential hardware is dead. At least it will boot up and show what is wrong. I simply don't have time to learn Linux at a deep enough level to maintain it properly. And as my intimacy with Windows dwindles, MS improve its ability to be managed by the uninterested. I'm running Linux on an older machine but I sure as hell don't depend on it. Cheers, Alan Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. > > make their system insecure. It's hilarious how you Windows droids just > > don't get it and think it's ok that you have to secure your OS before you > > expose it to the Internet. > > It's hilarious how my Linux system crashed I haven't brought Linux up at all in this thread. I haven't used it this millenia and don't care to ever again. Greg >>>make their system insecure. It's hilarious how you Windows droids just >>>don't get it and think it's ok that you have to secure your OS before [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I haven't brought Linux up at all in this thread. I haven't used it this > millenia and don't care to ever again. The point is that Windows (which you brought up) even with a partially failed system will keep on going and will be "fixable" with minimum fuss. It is quite serviceable. Frankly your whole tone in this thread smacks of obsession against Windows. The OS that most of the world uses. Economics dictates when something better comes along, people will flock to it. They're not flocking very hard. >> I haven't brought Linux up at all in this thread. I haven't used it >> this millenia and don't care to ever again. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Economics dictates when something better comes along, people will > flock to it. They're not flocking very hard. Very well said. Greg and I had this very same debate a while back and we finally came to the conclusion that his IT department is simply well beyond inept and clueless and should be fired. You nailed it with your assessment of Windows. It's amazing that the majority of people using Windows really never have all these "problems" and "security holes" these anti-Microsoft zealots are so quick to spurt off. Rita > >> I haven't brought Linux up at all in this thread. I haven't used it > >> this millenia and don't care to ever again. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > never have all these "problems" and "security holes" these anti-Microsoft > zealots are so quick to spurt off. Yeah, right, the entire IT depts of CNN, ABC, and the NY Times should be fired because they were unable to protect their users from ZOTOB. "Worm strikes down Windows 2000 systems A computer worm shut down computer systems running the Windows 2000 operating system across the United States on Tuesday, hitting computers at CNN, ABC and The New York Times. Around 5 p.m. computers began crashing at CNN facilities in New York and Atlanta. ABC said its problems began in New York about 1:30 p.m. The Caterpillar Co. in Peoria, Illinois also was reportedly affected." You keep getting funnier and funnier. I can find many, many similar quotes. Can you find one similar quote involving OS X? No? Or maybe all those users who call the Geek Squad to have spyware removed from their systems should have their computers taken away from them because they're not well-versed in the insecurity of Windows. Those sure aren't Macs that the Geek Squad are fixing. Greg > Yeah, right, the entire IT depts of CNN, ABC, and the NY Times should > be fired because they were unable to protect their users from ZOTOB. Absolutely! If they are that incompetent they must go. > You keep getting funnier and funnier. I can find many, many similar > quotes. Can you find one similar quote involving OS X? No? Sure, and replace all your Windows boxes with OS X boxes and see how productive these people will be. Productivity will be nonexistent. > Or maybe all those users who call the Geek Squad to have spyware > removed from their systems should have their computers taken away > from them because they're not well-versed in the insecurity of > Windows. Those sure aren't Macs that the Geek Squad are fixing. Who calls the Geek Squad? Maybe your IT department would benefit from their services? It's amazing how the Mac zealots are trying to grasp at straws while their would shrinks around them. First they claim they have superior hardware. Now they have Intel and love it. Next they will have Windows and they will love it. Only reason Apple and OS X exist is because Microsoft wants them to and the iPod sales really help. Rita > Or maybe all those users who call the Geek Squad to have spyware removed > from their systems should have their computers taken away from them because > they're not well-versed in the insecurity of Windows. Those sure aren't > Macs that the Geek Squad are fixing. Then why do apple issue "security patches"?. >> Or maybe all those users who call the Geek Squad to have spyware removed >> from their systems should have their computers taken away from them because >> they're not well-versed in the insecurity of Windows. Those sure aren't >> Macs that the Geek Squad are fixing. >Then why do apple issue "security patches"?. Everybody issues security patches. There have been three patches to the current linux kernal this year alone. There have been a few more than that for Windows XP. Signature--- Paul J. Gans > It's amazing that the majority of people using Windows really > never have all these "problems" and "security holes" these anti-Microsoft > zealots are so quick to spurt off. They don't even know of Newsgroups and wouldn't find a virus if it was dancing in front of them, dressed in purple bondage gear, waving a huge sign and singing "Viruses are here again". Loudly. Quick question for you: How do you _prove_ an exe is not infected by a virus? -Wolfgang > They don't even know of Newsgroups and wouldn't find a virus if > it was dancing in front of them, dressed in purple bondage gear, > waving a huge sign and singing "Viruses are here again". Loudly. BULLSHIT! > Quick question for you: How do you _prove_ an exe is not infected > by a virus? You run it! Rita >> They don't even know of Newsgroups and wouldn't find a virus if >> it was dancing in front of them, dressed in purple bondage gear, >> waving a huge sign and singing "Viruses are here again". Loudly. > BULLSHIT! You're not much into Blackadder, are you? >> Quick question for you: How do you _prove_ an exe is not infected >> by a virus? > You run it! Wrong! -Wolfgang >>> Quick question for you: How do you _prove_ an exe is not infected >>> by a virus? > >> You run it! > > Wrong! Why? It's not going anywhere since its contained. Rita >>>> Quick question for you: How do you _prove_ an exe is not infected >>>> by a virus? >>> You run it! >> Wrong! > Why? It's not going anywhere since its contained. You _might_ be able to show that the software contains a virus by observing the virus. You _cannot_ disprove a virus that way, since the virus may trigger only randomly or in a specific environment, so "You run it!" is the wrong answer. Please, think again: how do you _prove_ that a given program is not infected by a virus? -Wolfgang > >>>make their system insecure. It's hilarious how you Windows droids just > >>>don't get it and think it's ok that you have to secure your OS before [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > The point is that Windows (which you brought up) even with a partially > failed system will keep on going and will be "fixable" with minimum fuss. I'm talking about default security, and I believe that's the only thing I've been talking about (except for a sidenote about our current Maxtor failures, which has absolutely nothing to do with the OS). You cannot put a default install of XP SP1 and earlier up on the Internet and not have it exploited in 15 minutes. Greg >> >>>make their system insecure. It's hilarious how you Windows droids just >> >>>don't get it and think it's ok that you have to secure your OS before [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > install of XP SP1 and earlier up on the Internet and not have it exploited > in 15 minutes. I'm still waiting for that 15 minute exploit. Been waiting now for what, 5 years? Can you say "FUD"? SignatureX:\Newsreaders\sig.txt >>>>>> make their system insecure. It's hilarious how you Windows droids just >>>>>> don't get it and think it's ok that you have to secure your OS before [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Can you say "FUD"? Please. Have you tried it? On two separate occasions recently at work our broadcast engineers put unpatched XP SP1 machines on to satellite internet connections at our transmitters. Unfortunately since everything is going digital engineers who have never had to deal with the insecurities of Windows are deploying Windows for various duties such as grabbing program guides for display on our digital channels and for providing streaming video for closed captioners. In both cases the engineer plugged XP in, turned it on, connected it to the receiver, configured the IP address, and while they were installing and configuring Triveni Guidebuilder the machine became unresponsive. They brought the machines to me and after a quick look around it was clear they had been owned so some script kiddies could run the eggdrop IRC bot on them. Greg Signature"All my time I spent in heaven Revelries of dance and wine Waking to the sound of laughter Up I'd rise and kiss the sky" - The Mekons ...and I thought the third world war would be fought over religion. I am starting to see the light... It just might be fought over which operating system is the best. Personally, I like Solaris but none of my software will run on it. The Ubuntu Linux versions are pretty nice too but not much of my software will run on them either. I've dabbled around with the QNX operating system but same problem. Unfortunately, my XP pro runs the software that I need to use. Until the software vendors start producing programs that run on alternative operating systems, I will be using whatever is required to get the job done. My computer is just a tool. I pick my application programs first and then I go to find the hardware and operating system to support the program that I need to run. Its that simple. > ...and I thought the third world war would be fought over religion. > I am starting to see the light... [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > then I go to find the hardware and operating system to support the > program that I need to run. Its that simple. You might be able to run your Windows applications under Linux/WINE, or another emulator. May be the best of both worlds for you? I ended up with one FreeBSD machine, though, as Linux's timekeeping performance was not recommended for the application in question (a precise timekeeper). I did look at Linux at one point for my own software, but there were far to many variations to make software viable. Different "distros", different versions, different desktops etc. etc. A potential support nightmare. David >> ...and I thought the third world war would be fought over religion. I >> am starting to see the light... [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > You might be able to run your Windows applications under Linux/WINE, or > another emulator. May be the best of both worlds for you? I don't see that as "the best of both worlds". I see it as making work for oneself to no real purpose. > I ended up > with one FreeBSD machine, though, as Linux's timekeeping performance was [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > different versions, different desktops etc. etc. A potential support > nightmare. And then you use some third-party package that works wonderfully only to find that the kid who wrote it graduated from college and got a job and a wife and a kid and a mortgage and is too busy dealing with life to maintain it. > David SignatureX:\Newsreaders\sig.txt >> I ended up >> with one FreeBSD machine, though, as Linux's timekeeping performance was [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> different versions, different desktops etc. etc. A potential support >> nightmare. >And then you use some third-party package that works wonderfully only to >find that the kid who wrote it graduated from college and got a job and a >wife and a kid and a mortgage and is too busy dealing with life to >maintain it. Come on guys, you are laying it on as thick as some linux enthusiasts. A huge fraction of the servers in the world are running either linux or some variant of BSD unix (mostly the former) and they don't have this problem. If you need a wide variety of programs that have no equivalent in linux, run Windows. I run both since I use both Photoshop and Dreamweaver regularly. And I like Irfanview for some of its features. And I've been known to play a computer game or two. On the other hand I write on linux using LaTex and I use linux for program development because there is not an equivalent set of development tools for Windows. At my office I have two machines, one runs linux, one runs Windows (and is behind a router with no other computer hooked to it too). At home I dual boot as my wife won't tolerate a second machine. I'm happy. I've installed both operating systems from scratch on homebuilt systems many times and I must say that linux is easier to install. I'm yet to have incompatible hardware. Windows is a pain and is so sparse with meaningful error messages that I'm never sure what the problem is -- and it usually goes away after four or five installation attempts, each one getting further than the last one. ---- Paul J. Gans Signature--- Paul J. Gans [] > And then you use some third-party package that works wonderfully only > to find that the kid who wrote it graduated from college and got a > job and a wife and a kid and a mortgage and is too busy dealing with > life to maintain it. That applies to any OS. Indeed, it applies to many paid-for packages judging by the way some of the software appears to "work". David >[] >> And then you use some third-party package that works wonderfully only [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >That applies to any OS. Indeed, it applies to many paid-for packages >judging by the way some of the software appears to "work". It doesn't apply to Open Source software though. Any project that is actually useful and "works wonderfully" will continue to be maintained by _somebody_, even if the original author drops dead literally or figuratively. With proprietary code, that's the end; but if it has been released under something like the FSF's GPL the package will continue. SignatureFloyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com > You might be able to run your Windows applications under Linux/WINE, > or another emulator. May be the best of both worlds for you? I > ended up with one FreeBSD machine, though, as Linux's timekeeping > performance was not recommended for the application in question (a > precise timekeeper). Why whine using WINE when you can just load the proper OS, XP, an enjoy life? Rita >> You might be able to run your Windows applications under Linux/WINE, >> or another emulator. May be the best of both worlds for you? I [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Why whine using WINE when you can just load the proper OS, XP, an > enjoy life? WINE allows the user to use both Linux and Windows programs. An alternative would be to a Linux emulator under Windows (e.g. using VMware). David CYGWIN? SignatureJoan http://www.flickr.com/photos/joan-in-manly : WINE allows the user to use both Linux and Windows programs. An : alternative would be to a Linux emulator under Windows (e.g. using : VMware). : : David >> Why whine using WINE when you can just load the proper OS, XP, an >> enjoy life? > > WINE allows the user to use both Linux and Windows programs. An > alternative would be to a Linux emulator under Windows (e.g. using > VMware). You are aware that not *ALL* windows applications run smoothly and efficiently on WINE? Been there. Rita > Unfortunately, my XP pro runs the software that I need to use. Until > the software vendors start producing programs that run on alternative [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > then I go to find the hardware and operating system to support the > program that I need to run. Its that simple. Well said! I think these morons get their panties in a bunch thinking they will actually get a better OS than XP. XP does its job really well for so many people. Rita >>>>>>> make their system insecure. It's hilarious how you Windows droids just >>>>>>> don't get it and think it's ok that you have to secure your OS before [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > configured the IP address, and while they were installing and > configuring Triveni Guidebuilder the machine became unresponsive. Been running XP for years, never had that kind of problem with any version of it. > They brought the machines to me and after a quick look around it was > clear they had been owned so some script kiddies could run the eggdrop > IRC bot on them. Pity. What I want to know is what you're doing running what appear to be mission-critical machines outside the firewall. > Greg SignatureX:\Newsreaders\sig.txt > >>>>>>> make their system insecure. It's hilarious how you Windows droids just > >>>>>>> don't get it and think it's ok that you have to secure your OS before [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > Pity. What I want to know is what you're doing running what appear to be > mission-critical machines outside the firewall. And your point is? My point is that you CANNOT put an XP SP1, Win2k SP3, or earlier machine directly on the Internet or it will be exploited in short time. Sometimes one doesn't have the power available to run more than a handful of low power devices. Others OSes, which are secure by default, can easily be thrown on the Internet without worry. Likewise, on a very large firewalled network with many points of ingress, like mine at work, a very large class A network, 3.0.0.0, you're gambling if you put an unpatched XP SP1 machine on the network. Physical security isn't held to the same standard at various offices around the world. Greg > And your point is? My point is that you CANNOT put an XP SP1, Win2k SP3, or > earlier machine directly on the Internet or it will be exploited in short > time. Sometimes one doesn't have the power available to run more than a > handful of low power devices. Others OSes, which are secure by default, can > easily be thrown on the Internet without worry. Oh, yeah, I guess everyone should be fired for running XP. Those few people who can figure out how to secure an XP machine just aren't cutting it: http://www.eweek.com/slideshow_viewer/0,1205,l=&s=25954&a=194164&po=4,00.asp Greg >> >>>>>>> make their system insecure. It's hilarious how you Windows droids > just [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > handful of low power devices. Others OSes, which are secure by default, can > easily be thrown on the Internet without worry. Now why on Earth would anybody be running a Windows XP box in a location where "one doesn't have enough power available to run more than a handful of low power devices"? If the need is for low power you should be running something that will run on a minimal machine. > Likewise, on a very large firewalled network with many points of > ingress, like mine at work, a very large class A network, 3.0.0.0, > you're gambling if you put an unpatched XP SP1 machine on the network. > Physical security isn't held to the same standard at various offices > around the world. My point is that your assertion that any Windows box put on the Internet _will_ be compromised in 15 minutes is a load of crap. If you can't secure your network then you have a problem that is unrelated to Windows. SignatureX:\Newsreaders\sig.txt > My point is that your assertion that any Windows box put on the Internet > _will_ be compromised in 15 minutes is a load of crap. I didn't say any. I said a default XP SP1 or Win2k SP3 or earlier default install, of which there are still many on the Internet. I'm really sorry that you've so accepted Microsoft's complacent attitude towards security that you can't grasp the concept of secure by default. It's really not that difficult of a concept. Greg >> They brought the machines to me and after a quick look around it was >> clear they had been owned so some script kiddies could run the eggdrop >> IRC bot on them. > >Pity. What I want to know is what you're doing running what appear to be >mission-critical machines outside the firewall. You have a excellent point there. Anyone who runs XP without putting Linux between it and the Internet is asking for trouble... SignatureFloyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com [] > You have a excellent point there. Anyone who runs XP without putting > Linux between it and the Internet is asking for trouble... No need for Linux at all - a software firewall and NAT router are quite adequate for a correctly set-up, current XP SP2 PC. David >[] >> You have a excellent point there. Anyone who runs XP without putting >> Linux between it and the Internet is asking for trouble... > >No need for Linux at all - a software firewall and NAT router are quite >adequate for a correctly set-up, current XP SP2 PC. Except that what you actually do want is a *hardware* firewall/router. And most of them run Linux (though a BSD or Cisco's OS are okay too). SignatureFloyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com > No need for Linux at all - a software firewall and NAT router are quite > adequate for a correctly set-up, current XP SP2 PC. A software firewall works like this: http://www.e-2005.de/potw/unischranke.jpg But the feeling sure is great. -Wolfgang >[] >> You have a excellent point there. Anyone who runs XP without putting >> Linux between it and the Internet is asking for trouble... >No need for Linux at all - a software firewall and NAT router are quite >adequate for a correctly set-up, current XP SP2 PC. Many NAT routers run embedded linux. Signature--- Paul J. Gans > Been running XP for years, never had that kind of problem with any version > of it. So? The random anecdote is really quite meaningless. I've also a few XP machines around the house that have never had problems. But then I'm not quite foolish enough to put them directly on the internet. That is the key: directly on the internet. Many (most?) home users these days are not directly on the internet. Take a home with 2 or 3 hosts on a cheap DSL connection. That home user gets a DSL modem that does NAT which quite effectivly shields the PCs from many of the attack vectors. I'm also amazed at how many people are blissfully unaware that their machines are compromised. I'm at a friends house and notice his DSL modem blinking like crazy. "What's your machine doing?" I ask. "Nothing" he responds. He was quite unaware that his machine had been co-opted to send spam as part of some bot net. // marc >I'm also amazed at how many people are blissfully unaware that their >machines are compromised. I'm at a friends house and notice his >DSL modem blinking like crazy. "What's your machine doing?" I ask. >"Nothing" he responds. He was quite unaware that his machine had >been co-opted to send spam as part of some bot net. Good point, but I'm not sure it is totally accurate. My cable modem blinks when packets arrive on my branch of the cable -- shared with a number of other subscribers. It is not blinking for packets sent down the line to me. My home router (which runs a version of embedded linux) blinks for packets coming in to it, not necessarily for packets being sent to my machine. My computer, when booted into Windows, runs Zone Alarm which lets me know about both incoming and outgoing traffic. I know about the cable modem and the router because they blink with the computer turned off. Turning the router off does not stop the cable modem from blinking, but turning the cable modem off stops all blinks... ;-) Other setups, including yours, may differ. By the way, I can't prove that my machine isn't infected even though I run a virus checker and a spybot checker at frequent intervals. Signature--- Paul J. Gans There is another way to monitor network traffic on a Windows machine. Press CTRL-ALT-DELETE to get to the windows task manager. Select the networking tab. Select View. Select "Select Columns" Make sure that the boxes for "Bytes sent" and "Bytes received" are checked. Select ok. Now you can monitor the exact amount of traffic coming into and out of your machine. To reset the counter, just close down and re-open the windows task manager. BTW - I run Zone Alarm too. Its a great program and the Basic version is not trialware, its full working and free. http://www.zonelabs.com/store/content/company/products/znalm/freeDownload.jsp?dc =12bms&ctry=US&lang=en ---------------------------- > My computer, when booted into Windows, runs Zone Alarm which > lets me know about both incoming and outgoing traffic. > There is another way to monitor network traffic on a Windows machine. If you are really worried about what's going on between your machine and wherever, just read your logfile that Windows provides. This is usually found at "C:\WINDOWS\pfirewall.log" and gives real-time logging of all activity with IP addresses. Windows is chock full of great little features and basic tools that are provided free of charge. It doesn't get any simpler than this. Rita > DSL modem blinking like crazy. "What's your machine doing?" I ask. > "Nothing" he responds. He was quite unaware that his machine had > been co-opted to send spam as part of some bot net. Which light? My (cable modem) receive light is often blinking away and in checking with a variety of tools the machine is getting port scanned from a variety of places. But the send light sits off unless I'm using the net. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. Someone wrote: > Been running XP for years, never had that kind of problem with any > version of it. Isn't it amazing? Seems only the clueless have problems. >> They brought the machines to me and after a quick look around it was >> clear they had been owned so some script kiddies could run the >> eggdrop IRC bot on them. > > Pity. What I want to know is what you're doing running what appear > to be mission-critical machines outside the firewall. Yep! And this is at the point in the previous debate that I determined Greg simply didn't have the skills he claims to have. Rita > I'm talking about default security, and I believe that's the only thing I've > been talking about (except for a sidenote about our current Maxtor failures, > which has absolutely nothing to do with the OS). You cannot put a default > install of XP SP1 and earlier up on the Internet and not have it exploited > in 15 minutes. Last shot at clarifying this for you. Where *nix's do have a natural barrier against intrusion by design, MS has been around the microcomputer market longer as a successful OS. Warts and all. More s/w is written for MS DOS/Win/XP etc. than any other OS. So people are quite willing to pony up $49/year for the neccesary prophylactic of AV/A-Hack s/w. Windows now has a degree of A-hack built in. It's the market, not the design. We got a Mac in the lab some years ago and the proponent for it crowed about its "uncrashability". I had it crashed on the 2nd day. And I could repeat it. The market rules this, and yes MS is an 800 Lb gorilla and the defacto office s/w suite. We have dozens of XP machines running at work and the uptime is pretty much 100% unless something is being re-configured. So stop harping over Windows. Fact is that for every Mac/OSx that gets sold, 10 Windows XP get sold and MS is not going to give OSx room to improve. In fact MS is leaning a bit in the Linux direction with recend Novell/SUSE news. And the forecast is not improving for OSx market share. Cheers, Alan Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. >> I'm talking about default security, and I believe that's the only thing I've >> been talking about (except for a sidenote about our current Maxtor failures, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >the microcomputer market longer as a successful OS. Warts and >all. Eh? "MS" is a company. They have been marketing various OS's, and none of their current products are as old as some of the unix variations. In fact, MS itself is not as old as unix. >More s/w is written for MS DOS/Win/XP etc. than any other OS. So? >So people are quite willing to pony up $49/year for the >neccesary prophylactic of AV/A-Hack s/w. Windows now has a >degree of A-hack built in. > >It's the market, not the design. True! Microsoft has *always* been extremely successful at marketing (legal, or otherwise...). >We got a Mac in the lab some years ago and the proponent for it >crowed about its "uncrashability". I had it crashed on the 2nd >day. And I could repeat it. Thrilling. But generally doesn't a Mac crash spontaniously about 1/1000th as many times as an average OS from Microsoft? >The market rules this, and yes MS is an 800 Lb gorilla and the >defacto office s/w suite. We have dozens of XP machines running >at work and the uptime is pretty much 100% unless something is >being re-configured. Uptime in between being rebooted when it locks up? Or do you simply shut them off every night and reboot them each morning? >So stop harping over Windows. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >And the forecast is not improving for OSx market share. That is all probably true. I expect that Vista will be the last non-unix based OS from Microsoft. SignatureFloyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com >>>I'm talking about default security, and I believe that's the only thing I've >>>been talking about (except for a sidenote about our current Maxtor failures, [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > and none of their current products are as old as some of the > unix variations. In fact, MS itself is not as old as unix. I never said different (I did word that poorly). The company has been around long enough however and due to its dramatic emergence with an OS contract (DOS) to IBM, they took over the OS market for small computers. That positioned them for Windows (regardless of how poorly Windows began). >>More s/w is written for MS DOS/Win/XP etc. than any other OS. > > So? Self evident. They've lead / they lead. Will continue for quite a while. They are somewhat immune to revolution. >>So people are quite willing to pony up $49/year for the >>neccesary prophylactic of AV/A-Hack s/w. Windows now has a [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Thrilling. But generally doesn't a Mac crash spontaniously > about 1/1000th as many times as an average OS from Microsoft? I have not had more than a few crashes with Win98 and one hard crash with Win XP (3 systems over 2 years). >>The market rules this, and yes MS is an 800 Lb gorilla and the >>defacto office s/w suite. We have dozens of XP machines running [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Uptime in between being rebooted when it locks up? Or do you > simply shut them off every night and reboot them each morning? Win based servers are 100% on and get re-booted a couple times a year, usually for maintenance or move reasons (we've moved the servers twice in the past calendar year). Desktops, most of the s/w engineers leave their desktops on 24/7 and don't seem to reboot very often. I shut down every night. > That is all probably true. I expect that Vista will be the last > non-unix based OS from Microsoft. Hard to say. I doubt it though. MS love re-selling the OS every few years. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. > Uptime in between being rebooted when it locks up? Or do you > simply shut them off every night and reboot them each morning? My XP box runs 24/7/365, has UPS backup and the house is equipped with a backup generator. The last time I had to reboot was when Nikon Capture update asked me to after installation. The last time I had a total shutdown was to replace a defective DVD writer. It's foolish to power down and boot up a U320 SCSI RAID array every day, so it stays on. Rita > The last time I had to reboot was when Nikon Capture > update asked me to after installation. Care to explain why you'd want to reboot for a user program? -Wolfgang >Rita ? Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04@aol.com> wrote: >> The last time I had to reboot was when Nikon Capture >> update asked me to after installation. >Care to explain why you'd want to reboot for a user program? Great point! Is the answer "because the operating system is very badly designed?" And I understand that the basic design flaw persists in Vista. The only time one should have to reboot a system is when the parts of the operating system that are actually running need to be replaced by newer versions. One should NEVER have to reboot a computer simply because one installed a user program, or, for that matter, a reloadable module in the operating system. Signature--- Paul J. Gans > The only time one should have to reboot a system is when the > parts of the operating system that are actually running need > to be replaced by newer versions. Not even then. A lot of programs can be seen as part of the operating system. According to MS, their GUI _is_ part of the OS, and so is the Internet Explorer ... And yet I can update the SSH daemon while connecting to the machine using said SSH daemon, and not loosing connection, either. > One should NEVER have to reboot a computer simply because one > installed a user program, or, for that matter, a reloadable > module in the operating system. Yep. Of course, Linux does fall short of that: you are advised to reboot if you install a new build of the running kernel, with the same kernel version (i.e. your installed and running kernel has the version 2.6.18, build 1, your "new" kernel is _still_ 2.6.18, build 2 (with some patches applied)). You don't have to, but don't start crying if things go awry. There is also fun if you change the partition table of a drive where you have mounted some partition ... rebooting is advised there, too. On the other hand, kexec exists. -Wolfgang >> The only time one should have to reboot a system is when the >> parts of the operating system that are actually running need >> to be replaced by newer versions. >Not even then. A lot of programs can be seen as part of the >operating system. According to MS, their GUI _is_ part of the OS, >and so is the Internet Explorer ... I mentioned reloadable modules. The OS often needs to be rebooted to refresh the resident parts of itself. Those are not reread from disk but are loaded once at boot time. >And yet I can update the SSH daemon while connecting to the >machine using said SSH daemon, and not loosing connection, either. Of course. The SSH demon is not part of the OS. But I'm not sure of the course of events. SSH only runs when you are using a connection. So your current connection might continue on the old code. But with a bit of programming care, it can be reloaded on the fly. >> One should NEVER have to reboot a computer simply because one >> installed a user program, or, for that matter, a reloadable >> module in the operating system. >Yep. >Of course, Linux does fall short of that: you are advised to >reboot if you install a new build of the running kernel, with >the same kernel version (i.e. your installed and running kernel >has the version 2.6.18, build 1, your "new" kernel is _still_ >2.6.18, build 2 (with some patches applied)). You don't have to, >but don't start crying if things go awry. Of course. As I said above, there are many parts of the OS that are read only at boot time and stay memory resident. If you have a new build of the code it won't get into memory until you reboot -- unless one has written the kernel in such a way as to allow this. Linux is not one of those. There is no need. It really doesn't hurt to reboot your machine two or three times a year. By the way, SuSE just phased out support for SuSE 9.2, introduced in 2004. They listed the patches. IIRC there were three kernel patches that required reboots in the over two year period since it was introduced. How many patches did Microsoft send out in that period? >There is also fun if you change the partition table of a drive >where you have mounted some partition ... rebooting is >advised there, too. <grin> Signature--- Paul J. Gans >>> The only time one should have to reboot a system is when the >>> parts of the operating system that are actually running need >>> to be replaced by newer versions. >>Not even then. A lot of programs can be seen as part of the >>operating system. According to MS, their GUI _is_ part of the OS, >>and so is the Internet Explorer ... > I mentioned reloadable modules. The OS often needs to be rebooted > to refresh the resident parts of itself. Those are not reread > from disk but are loaded once at boot time. The only thing that applies to is the core kernel and anything it needs to work (i.e. you _may_ want to read your file system ...) >>And yet I can update the SSH daemon while connecting to the >>machine using said SSH daemon, and not loosing connection, either. > Of course. The SSH demon is not part of the OS. I would say the SSH daemon as much part of the OS as the ls command or the shell. Core functionality. > But I'm not sure of the course of events. SSH only runs when you are > using a connection. sshd must run to accept a connection, unless you use inetd or similar metadaemons, which is uncommon with sshd. > So your current connection might continue on the old code. Of course. It also runs using the old libraries, as it keeps them open, and the file handles stay valid (and the old code accessible through them on the disk). Of course, no new program will see the old file, and once all file handles become unused, the hard disk space will be released as 'free'. There is no simple, solid other way to upgrade libraries on the fly and not stop all running programs. > But with a bit of programming care, it can be reloaded on the fly. This may well be a cryptographic nightmare. > Of course. As I said above, there are many parts of the > OS that are read only at boot time and stay memory resident. Few, actually: the core-kernel and such modules you cannot unload without stopping the machine. (You want to read your FS to load up the new FS-reading module, but you can always try and use a RAM-disk with a _different_ FS. :-) > If you have a new build of the code it won't get into memory > until you reboot -- unless one has written the kernel in > such a way as to allow this. Linux is not one of those. Actually, if the changes just update reloadable modules, not binary interfaces, no problem. And then there is kexec. :-> -Wolfgang >> I'm talking about default security, and I believe that's the only >> thing I've [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > It's the market, not the design. It's design. If you want me to start posting even more off-topic posts on why OS X is inherently more secure than Windows XP I'll be more than happy to. You're out of your league here just like you were in the thread about how Usenet works. Marketshare or not, with all the Apple marketing about how secure OS X is a crowning achievement for a security researcher would be to put up a proof-of-concept self-propagating worm affecting OS X. It hasn't happened yet and there are a lot of crackers working on it. > We got a Mac in the lab some years ago and the proponent for it crowed > about its "uncrashability". I had it crashed on the 2nd day. And I > could repeat it. And it was clearly pre-OS X. > The market rules this, and yes MS is an 800 Lb gorilla and the defacto > office s/w suite. We have dozens of XP machines running at work and the > uptime is pretty much 100% unless something is being re-configured. Yes. You can have 100% uptime even when your machines are spam zombies: http://www.eweek.com/slideshow_viewer/0,1205,l=&s=25954&a=194164&po=4,00.asp Greg Signature"All my time I spent in heaven Revelries of dance and wine Waking to the sound of laughter Up I'd rise and kiss the sky" - The Mekons >>> I'm talking about default security, and I believe that's the only >>> thing I've [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > happy to. You're out of your league here just like you were in the > thread about how Usenet works. tsk, tsk. My misled assumption about usenet, aside, I never claimed that Windows was bullet proof, quite the contrary (twice said above, if you'll bother to _read_). All I'm asking you to see is that "it's the market, stoopid". IOW, if Windows were so pathetically bad it would not be the #1 (by very, very, very far) OS in the world. Fact is people would rather put up with it and pay the A-V/A-H piper than switch to the less well supported (less applications) Apple/OSx world or the difficult-for-the-uninitiuated-to-maintain Linux world. The day will come perhaps when it is really easier, not to mention cheaper, to be in a non Windows world. That day has not come (may be cheaper, but certainly not easier). I'm, right as I'm typing this, installing fedora on an older machine. If it turns out to be easilly maintainable (v. Mandrake 10.1 which turned out not to be), I'll possibly install *this* machine as a primarily fedora. But it will take a _lot_ of time. > Marketshare or not, with all the Apple marketing about how secure OS X > is a crowning achievement for a security researcher would be to put up a > proof-of-concept self-propagating worm affecting OS X. It hasn't > happened yet and there are a lot of crackers working on it. But the point is: 9 / 10 people will simply buy Windows and pay the annual A-V/A-H upkeep. It has _nothing_ to do with the security of OSx. That's not a swing argument no matter how much you try to make it one. >> We got a Mac in the lab some years ago and the proponent for it crowed >> about its "uncrashability". I had it crashed on the 2nd day. And I [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Yes. You can have 100% uptime even when your machines are spam zombies: Not at all. We're well firewalled at the server and on each machine and our IT guy has this as a daily verification task (traffic analysis of everything at the internet firewall). Again, if it were as bad (impactful) as you and your shrill legions suggest, Windows would have faded away a long time ago. Cheers, Alan Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. > Again, if it were as bad (impactful) as you and your shrill legions > suggest, Windows would have faded away a long time ago. It is as bad as these shrill legions suggest, because users who don't know any better don't realize their Windows mac |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message