Norton! What a pain in the butt!!!

I've just spent a few days trying to do something really simple, and
I'm furious!!!!

I took some pictures on the weekend, and downloaded Web Picture
Creator 1.8.
Let's put them on my new domain I thought. Yeah right.

Web Picture Creator 1.8 worked easily enough. After I cleared out
some space.
(turned that my hard drive was bad, and that wasted enough hours!)

Then I uploaded everything to my domain. The web page loaded.
But I can't see the pictures.

I call the ISP. They can see the pictures. Hmm!

The Norton logs say:


Content Blocked:

Date Time: 4/3/2007 2:38:55 PM
User:
Action: Blocked
Type: Ad
URL: http://www.?domain?.com/?directory?/index.html
Data: IMG src="thumbnails/thumb_DSC_0973.JPG" (Reason: width=120
height=80)

I call Norton and finally get someone in India.


Turn off ad blocking, and popup blocking. It works.
So, Norton is the culprit.


Norton Internet Security
Status and settings,
Privacy control
Configure
Advanced
Ad blocking


Spend about 2 hours with Norton on the phone.
The guy's solution: reinstall!

I say No way. Send the expert.



Eventually get a call back later from Symantec. The brains this
time.


We install TeamView. From: http://www.dyngate.com/licensing/
It allows him to see my machine.

He checks the webpage at:

http://validator.w3.org/


Below are the results of attempting to parse this document with an
SGML parser.

Error Line 15 column 162: required attribute "ALT" not specified.
....DSC_0961.JPG" width="120" height="80"></a></div></td>The attribute
given above is required for an element that you've used, but you have
omitted it. For instance, in most HTML and XHTML document types the
"type" attribute is required on the "script" element and the "alt"
attribute is required for the "img" element.

Typical values for type are type="text/css" for <style> and type="text/
javascript" for <script>.


It says that the problem is that the website is missing the > sign
after: height="80"

Norton interprets this as a potential problem.


I change the HTML To:

<tr>
<td valign="top" width="120"><div align="center"><a href="photos/
DSC_0961.html"><img class="thumb" src="thumbnails/thumb_DSC_0961.JPG"
width="120" height="80" alt="picture" > </a></div></td>
<td valign="top" width="120"><div align="center"><a href="photos/
DSC_0962.html"><img class="thumb" src="thumbnails/thumb_DSC_0962.JPG"
width="120" height="80" alt="picture" > </a></div></td>



But, I still have problems!!!! I still can't see the images.

But the guy at my ISP can. And my friends can.



But if that's not enough, get this!!!!

Now, after I refresh the webpage, major parts of the HTML don't even
come back in the browser!!!



<tr>

<td valign="top" width="120"><div align="center"><a href="photos/
DSC_0961.html"> </a></div></td>
<td valign="top" width="120"><div align="center"><a href="photos/
DSC_0962.html"> </a></div></td>


The whole IMG tag is now missing!!!!
The guy at my ISP can see it.
But it does not get through the Norton on my machine!


I can understand some kinds of strange code. But this is just pure
very simple HTML code. No java, javascript, asp, etc.


Can you believe it?????


I've spent at least 5 hours trying to deal with this!!!!


What is a better security system than Norton????

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Fup: comp.security.firewalls

photoguy_222 [at] yahoo.com wrote:
> Norton! What a pain in the butt!!!

Took a while to find out that... Nothing really unusual about your problems.

> What is a better security system than Norton????

You! No software is better than you. Any other security software will
have the same issues sooner or later. It is inherent in the way they are
designed and because it is still dumb software and nothing else.

Gerald

I had Norton and my computer got so constipated I removed it. I now use my
ISP's security system with no apparent problem. I don't know who they use.

"Gerald Vogt" <vogt [at] spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:4612fd16$0$15972$44c9b20d [at] news3.asahi-net.or.jp...
> Fup: comp.security.firewalls
>
> photoguy_222 [at] yahoo.com wrote:
>> Norton! What a pain in the butt!!!
>
> Took a while to find out that... Nothing really unusual about your
> problems.
>
>> What is a better security system than Norton????
>
> You! No software is better than you. Any other security software will have
> the same issues sooner or later. It is inherent in the way they are
> designed and because it is still dumb software and nothing else.
>
> Gerald

On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 10:19:26 +0900, Gerald Vogt <vogt [at] spamcop.net>
wrote:

>Fup: comp.security.firewalls
>
>photoguy_222 [at] yahoo.com wrote:
>> Norton! What a pain in the butt!!!
>
>Took a while to find out that... Nothing really unusual about your problems.
>
>> What is a better security system than Norton????
>
>You! No software is better than you.

Woah, woah, woah...hold up there. That ONLY works if the user is
INTELLIGENT, if the user is an IDIOT...then no, stick with Norton. It
might be an unbudging bitch of a cyber nanny, but if yer a complete
fuckup then it'll keep you out of trouble and that's just what some
users need.

--

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ¹ x ¹
http://www.backwater-productions.net
http://www.backwater-productions.net/hatter-blog


Hatter Quotes
-------------
"You're only one of the best if you're striving to become one of the
best."

"I didn't make reality, Sunshine, I just verbally bitch slapped you
with it."

"I'm not a professional, I'm an artist."

"Your Usenet blinders are my best friend."

"Usenet Filters - Learn to shut yourself the fuck up!"

"Drugs killed Jesus you know...oh wait, no, that was the Jews, my
bad."

"There are clingy things in the grass...burrs 'n such...mmmm..."

"The more I learn the more I'm killing my idols."

"Is it wrong to incur and then use the hate ridden, vengeful stupidity
of complete strangers in random Usenet froups to further my art?"

"Freedom is only a concept, like race it's merely a social construct
that doesn't really exist outside of your ability to convince others
of its relevancy."

"Next time slow up a lil, then maybe you won't jump the gun and start
creamin yer panties before it's time to pop the champagne proper."

"Reality is directly proportionate to how creative you are."

"People are pretty fucking high on themselves if they think that
they're just born with a soul. *snicker*...yeah, like they're just
givin em out for free."

"Quible, quible said the Hare. Quite a lot of quibling...everywhere.
So the Hare took a long stare and decided at best, to leave the rest,
to their merry little mess."

"There's a difference between 'bad' and 'so earth shatteringly
horrible it makes the angels scream in terror as they violently rip
their heads off, their blood spraying into the faces of a thousand
sweet innocent horrified children, who will forever have the terrible
images burned into their tiny little minds'."

"How sad that you're such a poor judge of style that you can't even
properly gauge the artistic worth of your own efforts."

"Those who record history are those who control history."

"I am the living embodiment of hell itself in all its tormentive rage,
endless suffering, unfathomable pain and unending horror...but you
don't get sent to me...I come for you."

"Ideally in a fight I'd want a BGM-109A with a W80 250 kiloton
tactical thermonuclear fusion based war head."

"Tell me, would you describe yourself more as a process or a
function?"

"Apparently this group has got the market cornered on stupid.
Intelligence is down 137 points across the board and the forecast
indicates an increase in Webtv users."

"Is my .sig delimiter broken? Really? You're sure? Awww,
gee...that's too bad...for YOU!" `, )

On 3 Apr 2007 17:42:20 -0700, photoguy_222 [at] yahoo.com wrote:

>Norton! What a pain in the butt!!!
>
>I've just spent a few days trying to do something really simple, and
>I'm furious!!!!
>
>I took some pictures on the weekend, and downloaded Web Picture
>Creator 1.8.
>Let's put them on my new domain I thought. Yeah right.
>
>Web Picture Creator 1.8 worked easily enough. After I cleared out
>some space.
>(turned that my hard drive was bad, and that wasted enough hours!)
>
>Then I uploaded everything to my domain. The web page loaded.
>But I can't see the pictures.
>
>I call the ISP. They can see the pictures. Hmm!
>
>The Norton logs say:
>
>
>Content Blocked:
>
>Date Time: 4/3/2007 2:38:55 PM
>User:
>Action: Blocked
>Type: Ad
>URL: http://www.?domain?.com/?directory?/index.html
>Data: IMG src="thumbnails/thumb_DSC_0973.JPG" (Reason: width=120
>height=80)

Well that's the answer right there...I guess you must just be an
idiot. I mean, can't you read? Norton is obviously setup to block
images of a specific size, a size which is often used by spam
advertisements. Simply crop your images by a pixel or two, that
should solve the problem. Or just look through the settings in
Norton, there's probably something there that lets you get real
specific about the type of ad and popup blocking that it does.

--

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ¹ x ¹
http://www.backwater-productions.net
http://www.backwater-productions.net/hatter-blog


Hatter Quotes
-------------
"You're only one of the best if you're striving to become one of the
best."

"I didn't make reality, Sunshine, I just verbally bitch slapped you
with it."

"I'm not a professional, I'm an artist."

"Your Usenet blinders are my best friend."

"Usenet Filters - Learn to shut yourself the fuck up!"

"Drugs killed Jesus you know...oh wait, no, that was the Jews, my
bad."

"There are clingy things in the grass...burrs 'n such...mmmm..."

"The more I learn the more I'm killing my idols."

"Is it wrong to incur and then use the hate ridden, vengeful stupidity
of complete strangers in random Usenet froups to further my art?"

"Freedom is only a concept, like race it's merely a social construct
that doesn't really exist outside of your ability to convince others
of its relevancy."

"Next time slow up a lil, then maybe you won't jump the gun and start
creamin yer panties before it's time to pop the champagne proper."

"Reality is directly proportionate to how creative you are."

"People are pretty fucking high on themselves if they think that
they're just born with a soul. *snicker*...yeah, like they're just
givin em out for free."

"Quible, quible said the Hare. Quite a lot of quibling...everywhere.
So the Hare took a long stare and decided at best, to leave the rest,
to their merry little mess."

"There's a difference between 'bad' and 'so earth shatteringly
horrible it makes the angels scream in terror as they violently rip
their heads off, their blood spraying into the faces of a thousand
sweet innocent horrified children, who will forever have the terrible
images burned into their tiny little minds'."

"How sad that you're such a poor judge of style that you can't even
properly gauge the artistic worth of your own efforts."

"Those who record history are those who control history."

"I am the living embodiment of hell itself in all its tormentive rage,
endless suffering, unfathomable pain and unending horror...but you
don't get sent to me...I come for you."

"Ideally in a fight I'd want a BGM-109A with a W80 250 kiloton
tactical thermonuclear fusion based war head."

"Tell me, would you describe yourself more as a process or a
function?"

"Apparently this group has got the market cornered on stupid.
Intelligence is down 137 points across the board and the forecast
indicates an increase in Webtv users."

"Is my .sig delimiter broken? Really? You're sure? Awww,
gee...that's too bad...for YOU!" `, )

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 05:41:54 GMT, B. Nice <b__nice [at] hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 22:20:04 -0700, Onideus Mad Hatter
><usenet [at] backwater-productions.net> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 10:19:26 +0900, Gerald Vogt <vogt [at] spamcop.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>You! No software is better than you.
>>
>>Woah, woah, woah...hold up there. That ONLY works if the user is
>>INTELLIGENT, if the user is an IDIOT...then no, stick with Norton.
>
>If the user is an idiot, that is what needs fixing.
>
>>It might be an unbudging bitch of a cyber nanny, but if yer a complete
>>fuckup then it'll keep you out of trouble
>
>or add to them
>
>>and that's just what some users need.
>
>Users need to know what they are doing.

But a lot of users simply cannot be educated. You know there's a
reason they stopped referring to retards as "trainables"...and it
wasn't because it wasn't PC, it's because IT SIMPLY WASN'T TRUE. o_O

You can't fix stupid.

--

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ¹ x ¹
http://www.backwater-productions.net
http://www.backwater-productions.net/hatter-blog


Hatter Quotes
-------------
"You're only one of the best if you're striving to become one of the
best."

"I didn't make reality, Sunshine, I just verbally bitch slapped you
with it."

"I'm not a professional, I'm an artist."

"Your Usenet blinders are my best friend."

"Usenet Filters - Learn to shut yourself the fuck up!"

"Drugs killed Jesus you know...oh wait, no, that was the Jews, my
bad."

"There are clingy things in the grass...burrs 'n such...mmmm..."

"The more I learn the more I'm killing my idols."

"Is it wrong to incur and then use the hate ridden, vengeful stupidity
of complete strangers in random Usenet froups to further my art?"

"Freedom is only a concept, like race it's merely a social construct
that doesn't really exist outside of your ability to convince others
of its relevancy."

"Next time slow up a lil, then maybe you won't jump the gun and start
creamin yer panties before it's time to pop the champagne proper."

"Reality is directly proportionate to how creative you are."

"People are pretty fucking high on themselves if they think that
they're just born with a soul. *snicker*...yeah, like they're just
givin em out for free."

"Quible, quible said the Hare. Quite a lot of quibling...everywhere.
So the Hare took a long stare and decided at best, to leave the rest,
to their merry little mess."

"There's a difference between 'bad' and 'so earth shatteringly
horrible it makes the angels scream in terror as they violently rip
their heads off, their blood spraying into the faces of a thousand
sweet innocent horrified children, who will forever have the terrible
images burned into their tiny little minds'."

"How sad that you're such a poor judge of style that you can't even
properly gauge the artistic worth of your own efforts."

"Those who record history are those who control history."

"I am the living embodiment of hell itself in all its tormentive rage,
endless suffering, unfathomable pain and unending horror...but you
don't get sent to me...I come for you."

"Ideally in a fight I'd want a BGM-109A with a W80 250 kiloton
tactical thermonuclear fusion based war head."

"Tell me, would you describe yourself more as a process or a
function?"

"Apparently this group has got the market cornered on stupid.
Intelligence is down 137 points across the board and the forecast
indicates an increase in Webtv users."

"Is my .sig delimiter broken? Really? You're sure? Awww,
gee...that's too bad...for YOU!" `, )

photoguy_222 [at] yahoo.com wrote:
> Norton! What a pain in the butt!!!
<SNIP>
> What is a better security system than Norton????

Where's Seb Gottschalk when he's needed?
;^)

Jim Ford

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 17:42:20 -0700, photoguy_222 wrote:

> Norton! What a pain in the butt!!!
>
> I've just spent a few days trying to do something really simple, and
> I'm furious!!!!
>
> I took some pictures on the weekend, and downloaded Web Picture
> Creator 1.8.
> Let's put them on my new domain I thought. Yeah right.
>
> Web Picture Creator 1.8 worked easily enough. After I cleared out
> some space.
> (turned that my hard drive was bad, and that wasted enough hours!)
>
> Then I uploaded everything to my domain. The web page loaded.
> But I can't see the pictures.
>
> I call the ISP. They can see the pictures. Hmm!
>
> The Norton logs say:
>
>
> Content Blocked:
>
> Date Time: 4/3/2007 2:38:55 PM
> User:
> Action: Blocked
> Type: Ad
> URL: http://www.?domain?.com/?directory?/index.html
> Data: IMG src="thumbnails/thumb_DSC_0973.JPG" (Reason: width=120
> height=80)
>
> I call Norton and finally get someone in India.
>
>
> Turn off ad blocking, and popup blocking. It works.
> So, Norton is the culprit.
>
>
> Norton Internet Security
> Status and settings,
> Privacy control
> Configure
> Advanced
> Ad blocking
>
>
> Spend about 2 hours with Norton on the phone.
> The guy's solution: reinstall!
>
> I say No way. Send the expert.
>
>
>
> Eventually get a call back later from Symantec. The brains this
> time.
>
>
> We install TeamView. From: http://www.dyngate.com/licensing/
> It allows him to see my machine.
>
> He checks the webpage at:
>
> http://validator.w3.org/
>
>
> Below are the results of attempting to parse this document with an
> SGML parser.
>
> Error Line 15 column 162: required attribute "ALT" not specified.
> ...DSC_0961.JPG" width="120" height="80"></a></div></td>The attribute
> given above is required for an element that you've used, but you have
> omitted it. For instance, in most HTML and XHTML document types the
> "type" attribute is required on the "script" element and the "alt"
> attribute is required for the "img" element.
>
> Typical values for type are type="text/css" for <style> and type="text/
> javascript" for <script>.
>
>
> It says that the problem is that the website is missing the > sign
> after: height="80"
>
> Norton interprets this as a potential problem.
>
>
> I change the HTML To:
>
> <tr>
> <td valign="top" width="120"><div align="center"><a href="photos/
> DSC_0961.html"><img class="thumb" src="thumbnails/thumb_DSC_0961.JPG"
> width="120" height="80" alt="picture" > </a></div></td>
> <td valign="top" width="120"><div align="center"><a href="photos/
> DSC_0962.html"><img class="thumb" src="thumbnails/thumb_DSC_0962.JPG"
> width="120" height="80" alt="picture" > </a></div></td>
>
>
>
> But, I still have problems!!!! I still can't see the images.
>
> But the guy at my ISP can. And my friends can.
>
>
>
> But if that's not enough, get this!!!!
>
> Now, after I refresh the webpage, major parts of the HTML don't even
> come back in the browser!!!
>
>
>
> <tr>
>
> <td valign="top" width="120"><div align="center"><a href="photos/
> DSC_0961.html"> </a></div></td>
> <td valign="top" width="120"><div align="center"><a href="photos/
> DSC_0962.html"> </a></div></td>
>
>
> The whole IMG tag is now missing!!!!
> The guy at my ISP can see it.
> But it does not get through the Norton on my machine!
>
>
> I can understand some kinds of strange code. But this is just pure
> very simple HTML code. No java, javascript, asp, etc.
>
>
> Can you believe it?????
>
>
> I've spent at least 5 hours trying to deal with this!!!!
>
>
> What is a better security system than Norton????

I'd suggest you try a Linux Live CD - Knoppix is the standard by which
others are measured. I've been running Linux on four home computers for
five years online 24/7/365 via a broadband connection. During that time we
have had zero malware infestations. I do not bother with anything like
norton - I simply use the system defaults, and everything works. I cannot
understand why MS people keep beating themselves up like this. Linux will
also come with GIMP image manipulation program, OpenOffice suite, and
about 25000 other free programs. The only shortcoming I've found so far:
there does not seem to be a decent simple program for printing greeting
cards - so I run an MS one on Linux under WINE.

On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 10:19:26 +0900, Gerald Vogt wrote:

> Fup: comp.security.firewalls
>
> photoguy_222 [at] yahoo.com wrote:
>> Norton! What a pain in the butt!!!
>
> Took a while to find out that... Nothing really unusual about your problems.
>
>> What is a better security system than Norton????
>
> You! No software is better than you. Any other security software will
> have the same issues sooner or later. It is inherent in the way they are
> designed and because it is still dumb software and nothing else.
>
> Gerald

Actually, in this case it's a dumb OS. Linux does not have issues like
that.

On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 14:04:36 GMT, B. Nice <b__nice [at] hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 22:47:53 -0700, Onideus Mad Hatter
><usenet [at] backwater-productions.net> wrote:
>
>>You can't fix stupid.
>
>Then you can't protect stupid either.

Sure you can...well, or rather you can protect stupid from itself...to
a degree. That's not FIXING the stupid, that's just preventing it
from SPREADING. ^_^

--

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ¹ x ¹
http://www.backwater-productions.net
http://www.backwater-productions.net/hatter-blog


Hatter Quotes
-------------
"You're only one of the best if you're striving to become one of the
best."

"I didn't make reality, Sunshine, I just verbally bitch slapped you
with it."

"I'm not a professional, I'm an artist."

"Your Usenet blinders are my best friend."

"Usenet Filters - Learn to shut yourself the fuck up!"

"Drugs killed Jesus you know...oh wait, no, that was the Jews, my
bad."

"There are clingy things in the grass...burrs 'n such...mmmm..."

"The more I learn the more I'm killing my idols."

"Is it wrong to incur and then use the hate ridden, vengeful stupidity
of complete strangers in random Usenet froups to further my art?"

"Freedom is only a concept, like race it's merely a social construct
that doesn't really exist outside of your ability to convince others
of its relevancy."

"Next time slow up a lil, then maybe you won't jump the gun and start
creamin yer panties before it's time to pop the champagne proper."

"Reality is directly proportionate to how creative you are."

"People are pretty fucking high on themselves if they think that
they're just born with a soul. *snicker*...yeah, like they're just
givin em out for free."

"Quible, quible said the Hare. Quite a lot of quibling...everywhere.
So the Hare took a long stare and decided at best, to leave the rest,
to their merry little mess."

"There's a difference between 'bad' and 'so earth shatteringly
horrible it makes the angels scream in terror as they violently rip
their heads off, their blood spraying into the faces of a thousand
sweet innocent horrified children, who will forever have the terrible
images burned into their tiny little minds'."

"How sad that you're such a poor judge of style that you can't even
properly gauge the artistic worth of your own efforts."

"Those who record history are those who control history."

"I am the living embodiment of hell itself in all its tormentive rage,
endless suffering, unfathomable pain and unending horror...but you
don't get sent to me...I come for you."

"Ideally in a fight I'd want a BGM-109A with a W80 250 kiloton
tactical thermonuclear fusion based war head."

"Tell me, would you describe yourself more as a process or a
function?"

"Apparently this group has got the market cornered on stupid.
Intelligence is down 137 points across the board and the forecast
indicates an increase in Webtv users."

"Is my .sig delimiter broken? Really? You're sure? Awww,
gee...that's too bad...for YOU!" `, )

On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 08:55:30 -0600, ray <ray [at] zianet.com> wrote:

>I'd suggest you try a Linux Live CD - Knoppix is the standard by which
>others are measured. I've been running Linux on four home computers for
>five years online 24/7/365 via a broadband connection. During that time we
>have had zero malware infestations. I do not bother with anything like
>norton - I simply use the system defaults, and everything works. I cannot
>understand why MS people keep beating themselves up like this. Linux will
>also come with GIMP image manipulation program, OpenOffice suite, and
>about 25000 other free programs. The only shortcoming I've found so far:
>there does not seem to be a decent simple program for printing greeting
>cards - so I run an MS one on Linux under WINE.

Linux is great for a LOT of things...a desktop environment REALLY
isn't one of them though. If you're THAT fucking stupid...go get a
Mac, stay the fuck away from Linux and quit infesting it with your
stupid.

Or, if you'd like trip and look stupid, by all means, attempt to
defend your failing position of Linux as a desktop environment...I'll
very much enjoy ripping it to pieces... `, )

--

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ¹ x ¹
http://www.backwater-productions.net
http://www.backwater-productions.net/hatter-blog


Hatter Quotes
-------------
"You're only one of the best if you're striving to become one of the
best."

"I didn't make reality, Sunshine, I just verbally bitch slapped you
with it."

"I'm not a professional, I'm an artist."

"Your Usenet blinders are my best friend."

"Usenet Filters - Learn to shut yourself the fuck up!"

"Drugs killed Jesus you know...oh wait, no, that was the Jews, my
bad."

"There are clingy things in the grass...burrs 'n such...mmmm..."

"The more I learn the more I'm killing my idols."

"Is it wrong to incur and then use the hate ridden, vengeful stupidity
of complete strangers in random Usenet froups to further my art?"

"Freedom is only a concept, like race it's merely a social construct
that doesn't really exist outside of your ability to convince others
of its relevancy."

"Next time slow up a lil, then maybe you won't jump the gun and start
creamin yer panties before it's time to pop the champagne proper."

"Reality is directly proportionate to how creative you are."

"People are pretty fucking high on themselves if they think that
they're just born with a soul. *snicker*...yeah, like they're just
givin em out for free."

"Quible, quible said the Hare. Quite a lot of quibling...everywhere.
So the Hare took a long stare and decided at best, to leave the rest,
to their merry little mess."

"There's a difference between 'bad' and 'so earth shatteringly
horrible it makes the angels scream in terror as they violently rip
their heads off, their blood spraying into the faces of a thousand
sweet innocent horrified children, who will forever have the terrible
images burned into their tiny little minds'."

"How sad that you're such a poor judge of style that you can't even
properly gauge the artistic worth of your own efforts."

"Those who record history are those who control history."

"I am the living embodiment of hell itself in all its tormentive rage,
endless suffering, unfathomable pain and unending horror...but you
don't get sent to me...I come for you."

"Ideally in a fight I'd want a BGM-109A with a W80 250 kiloton
tactical thermonuclear fusion based war head."

"Tell me, would you describe yourself more as a process or a
function?"

"Apparently this group has got the market cornered on stupid.
Intelligence is down 137 points across the board and the forecast
indicates an increase in Webtv users."

"Is my .sig delimiter broken? Really? You're sure? Awww,
gee...that's too bad...for YOU!" `, )

On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 09:18:23 -0700, Onideus Mad Hatter wrote:

> On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 08:55:30 -0600, ray <ray [at] zianet.com> wrote:
>
>>I'd suggest you try a Linux Live CD - Knoppix is the standard by which
>>others are measured. I've been running Linux on four home computers for
>>five years online 24/7/365 via a broadband connection. During that time we
>>have had zero malware infestations. I do not bother with anything like
>>norton - I simply use the system defaults, and everything works. I cannot
>>understand why MS people keep beating themselves up like this. Linux will
>>also come with GIMP image manipulation program, OpenOffice suite, and
>>about 25000 other free programs. The only shortcoming I've found so far:
>>there does not seem to be a decent simple program for printing greeting
>>cards - so I run an MS one on Linux under WINE.
>
> Linux is great for a LOT of things...a desktop environment REALLY
> isn't one of them though. If you're THAT fucking stupid...go get a
> Mac, stay the fuck away from Linux and quit infesting it with your
> stupid.

I guess I must be that stupid. I've been using the Linux desktops -
specifically Gnome and KDE on various distributions for about seven years
now. I've also installed eight Linux internet computers at the local
library which have run virtually without OS maintenance (and more
importantly without patron complaint) for over two years now.

>
> Or, if you'd like trip and look stupid, by all means, attempt to
> defend your failing position of Linux as a desktop environment...I'll
> very much enjoy ripping it to pieces... `, )

Perhaps you'd like to give me some specific shortcomings you've found with
Linux as a desktop environment - I've already spelled out the one that
I've found.


>
> --
>
> Onideus Mad Hatter
> mhm ¹ x ¹
> http://www.backwater-productions.net
> http://www.backwater-productions.net/hatter-blog

On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 12:05:39 -0600, ray <ray [at] zianet.com> wrote:

>> Linux is great for a LOT of things...a desktop environment REALLY
>> isn't one of them though. If you're THAT fucking stupid...go get a
>> Mac, stay the fuck away from Linux and quit infesting it with your
>> stupid.

>I guess I must be that stupid. I've been using the Linux desktops -
>specifically Gnome and KDE on various distributions for about seven years
>now. I've also installed eight Linux internet computers at the local
>library which have run virtually without OS maintenance (and more
>importantly without patron complaint) for over two years now.

>> Or, if you'd like trip and look stupid, by all means, attempt to
>> defend your failing position of Linux as a desktop environment...I'll
>> very much enjoy ripping it to pieces... `, )

>Perhaps you'd like to give me some specific shortcomings you've found with
>Linux as a desktop environment - I've already spelled out the one that
>I've found.

1. teh driver support is SHIT, most times, even if something DOES
work...yeah...it's not even coming anywhere the fuck remotely close to
actually making use of the hardware's full potential.

2. obviously gaming is limited. Wine will work with VERY simplistic
applications, but you start tryin to use it on high end
stuff...mmm...dunno work so good.

3. there's a LOT of specialized Windows software that simply will not
work on Linux and often there is either no alternative or if there is
an alternative it's not as good as the Windows one.

4. development platforms and distribution formats like Flash, most
often Linux is the LAST os they even consider since it's hardly in use
by anybody as a desktop environment. That means if you're using
Windows you ALWAYS get first view of any new and emerging tech, where
as with Linux you often have to wait a year or two before they'll even
bother to port it. I mean just look at how long it took them to get
Flash 9 for Linux...hell it was so far behind they SKIPPED an entire
version. So for almost two years Windows and Mac users had exclusive
access to Flash 8 and later Flash 9 content before they FINALLY got it
on Linux (and it's still only a beta...although so far it's worked
with everything I've thrown at it).

Really those four things are what make Linux such an inferior desktop
operating system...and they won't go away...EVER. Linux is great for
a LOT of things, like symmetric multi-processing and running a web
server (which is what I use it for), but a desktop environment for
surfing the web and shit...man that's just fuckin stupid. I mean that
is just ball up, Jesus killing, child molesting retarded...it really
is...ESPECIALLY if your only reason is that you're too gawd damn
fuckin retarded to figure out how to avoid getting infected with
Malware. There are *SO* many different options and ways of preventing
Malware infections on Windows...yeah...I can't see as how it would
EVER reach a point where you would need to resort to Linux (except out
of sheer fucking stupidity). Seriously, installing Deep Freeze is a
fuck of a lot better than retarding back to such a deficient form of
desktop environment like Linux. That's like cutting off your nose to
try and spite your face. I mean, did you even BOTHER looking for
solutions to your Malware problem on Windows or did you just retard
directly to Linux?

--

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ¹ x ¹
http://www.backwater-productions.net
http://www.backwater-productions.net/hatter-blog


Hatter Quotes
-------------
"You're only one of the best if you're striving to become one of the
best."

"I didn't make reality, Sunshine, I just verbally bitch slapped you
with it."

"I'm not a professional, I'm an artist."

"Your Usenet blinders are my best friend."

"Usenet Filters - Learn to shut yourself the fuck up!"

"Drugs killed Jesus you know...oh wait, no, that was the Jews, my
bad."

"There are clingy things in the grass...burrs 'n such...mmmm..."

"The more I learn the more I'm killing my idols."

"Is it wrong to incur and then use the hate ridden, vengeful stupidity
of complete strangers in random Usenet froups to further my art?"

"Freedom is only a concept, like race it's merely a social construct
that doesn't really exist outside of your ability to convince others
of its relevancy."

"Next time slow up a lil, then maybe you won't jump the gun and start
creamin yer panties before it's time to pop the champagne proper."

"Reality is directly proportionate to how creative you are."

"People are pretty fucking high on themselves if they think that
they're just born with a soul. *snicker*...yeah, like they're just
givin em out for free."

"Quible, quible said the Hare. Quite a lot of quibling...everywhere.
So the Hare took a long stare and decided at best, to leave the rest,
to their merry little mess."

"There's a difference between 'bad' and 'so earth shatteringly
horrible it makes the angels scream in terror as they violently rip
their heads off, their blood spraying into the faces of a thousand
sweet innocent horrified children, who will forever have the terrible
images burned into their tiny little minds'."

"How sad that you're such a poor judge of style that you can't even
properly gauge the artistic worth of your own efforts."

"Those who record history are those who control history."

"I am the living embodiment of hell itself in all its tormentive rage,
endless suffering, unfathomable pain and unending horror...but you
don't get sent to me...I come for you."

"Ideally in a fight I'd want a BGM-109A with a W80 250 kiloton
tactical thermonuclear fusion based war head."

"Tell me, would you describe yourself more as a process or a
function?"

"Apparently this group has got the market cornered on stupid.
Intelligence is down 137 points across the board and the forecast
indicates an increase in Webtv users."

"Is my .sig delimiter broken? Really? You're sure? Awww,
gee...that's too bad...for YOU!" `, )

On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 11:25:29 -0700, Onideus Mad Hatter wrote:

> On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 12:05:39 -0600, ray <ray [at] zianet.com> wrote:
>
>>> Linux is great for a LOT of things...a desktop environment REALLY
>>> isn't one of them though. If you're THAT fucking stupid...go get a
>>> Mac, stay the fuck away from Linux and quit infesting it with your
>>> stupid.
>
>>I guess I must be that stupid. I've been using the Linux desktops -
>>specifically Gnome and KDE on various distributions for about seven years
>>now. I've also installed eight Linux internet computers at the local
>>library which have run virtually without OS maintenance (and more
>>importantly without patron complaint) for over two years now.
>
>>> Or, if you'd like trip and look stupid, by all means, attempt to
>>> defend your failing position of Linux as a desktop environment...I'll
>>> very much enjoy ripping it to pieces... `, )
>
>>Perhaps you'd like to give me some specific shortcomings you've found with
>>Linux as a desktop environment - I've already spelled out the one that
>>I've found.
>
> 1. teh driver support is SHIT, most times, even if something DOES
> work...yeah...it's not even coming anywhere the fuck remotely close to
> actually making use of the hardware's full potential.

I not familiar with the 'teh driver', but I find that things work for me.
Epson photo printer, Brother laser printer, Epson scanner . . . Generally
I find that they work at least as well as MS and certainly better than
with vista.

>
> 2. obviously gaming is limited. Wine will work with VERY simplistic
> applications, but you start tryin to use it on high end
> stuff...mmm...dunno work so good.

Can't comment on that. I don't spend much time playing games on Linux.
Figured that would be a good excuse for a game console if I ever much got
into it. BTW - my daughter (B.S. with double major in math and computer
science) does her games on game consoles.

>
> 3. there's a LOT of specialized Windows software that simply will not
> work on Linux and often there is either no alternative or if there is
> an alternative it's not as good as the Windows one.

There might be a few. The only thing I've not been able to find that I
looked for was a simple program to print greeting cards. So we run that on
Linux via WINE.

>
> 4. development platforms and distribution formats like Flash, most
> often Linux is the LAST os they even consider since it's hardly in use
> by anybody as a desktop environment. That means if you're using
> Windows you ALWAYS get first view of any new and emerging tech, where
> as with Linux you often have to wait a year or two before they'll even
> bother to port it. I mean just look at how long it took them to get
> Flash 9 for Linux...hell it was so far behind they SKIPPED an entire
> version. So for almost two years Windows and Mac users had exclusive
> access to Flash 8 and later Flash 9 content before they FINALLY got it
> on Linux (and it's still only a beta...although so far it's worked
> with everything I've thrown at it).

Not much to comment on there either. I've always figured that content was
much more important than glitz.

>
> Really those four things are what make Linux such an inferior desktop
> operating system...and they won't go away...EVER. Linux is great for
> a LOT of things, like symmetric multi-processing and running a web
> server (which is what I use it for), but a desktop environment for
> surfing the web and shit...man that's just fuckin stupid. I mean that
> is just ball up, Jesus killing, child molesting retarded...it really
> is...ESPECIALLY if your only reason is that you're too gawd damn
> fuckin retarded to figure out how to avoid getting infected with
> Malware. There are *SO* many different options and ways of preventing
> Malware infections on Windows...yeah...I can't see as how it would
> EVER reach a point where you would need to resort to Linux (except out
> of sheer fucking stupidity). Seriously, installing Deep Freeze is a
> fuck of a lot better than retarding back to such a deficient form of
> desktop environment like Linux. That's like cutting off your nose to
> try and spite your face. I mean, did you even BOTHER looking for
> solutions to your Malware problem on Windows or did you just retard
> directly to Linux?
>

The point about malware is: why should I have to keep expending resources
just because the base OS is so riddled with holes? I've got a lot better
things to do with my time and money.

I'll reiterate that the patrons at the local library have been happily
surfing the net, doing office apps, editing pictures, etc. for over two
years now on Linux desktops and we have yet to hear a complaint. The
systems just work.

BTW - I've seen the point made many times that profanity is simply a
crutch for a weak mind. Now I believe it.


> --
>
> Onideus Mad Hatter
> mhm ¹ x ¹
> http://www.backwater-productions.net
> http://www.backwater-productions.net/hatter-blog
>
>
> Hatter Quotes
> -------------
> "You're only one of the best if you're striving to become one of the
> best."
>
> "I didn't make reality, Sunshine, I just verbally bitch slapped you
> with it."
>
> "I'm not a professional, I'm an artist."
>
> "Your Usenet blinders are my best friend."
>
> "Usenet Filters - Learn to shut yourself the fuck up!"
>
> "Drugs killed Jesus you know...oh wait, no, that was the Jews, my
> bad."
>
> "There are clingy things in the grass...burrs 'n such...mmmm..."
>
> "The more I learn the more I'm killing my idols."
>
> "Is it wrong to incur and then use the hate ridden, vengeful stupidity
> of complete strangers in random Usenet froups to further my art?"
>
> "Freedom is only a concept, like race it's merely a social construct
> that doesn't really exist outside of your ability to convince others
> of its relevancy."
>
> "Next time slow up a lil, then maybe you won't jump the gun and start
> creamin yer panties before it's time to pop the champagne proper."
>
> "Reality is directly proportionate to how creative you are."
>
> "People are pretty fucking high on themselves if they think that
> they're just born with a soul. *snicker*...yeah, like they're just
> givin em out for free."
>
> "Quible, quible said the Hare. Quite a lot of quibling...everywhere.
> So the Hare took a long stare and decided at best, to leave the rest,
> to their merry little mess."
>
> "There's a difference between 'bad' and 'so earth shatteringly
> horrible it makes the angels scream in terror as they violently rip
> their heads off, their blood spraying into the faces of a thousand
> sweet innocent horrified children, who will forever have the terrible
> images burned into their tiny little minds'."
>
> "How sad that you're such a poor judge of style that you can't even
> properly gauge the artistic worth of your own efforts."
>
> "Those who record history are those who control history."
>
> "I am the living embodiment of hell itself in all its tormentive rage,
> endless suffering, unfathomable pain and unending horror...but you
> don't get sent to me...I come for you."
>
> "Ideally in a fight I'd want a BGM-109A with a W80 250 kiloton
> tactical thermonuclear fusion based war head."
>
> "Tell me, would you describe yourself more as a process or a
> function?"
>
> "Apparently this group has got the market cornered on stupid.
> Intelligence is down 137 points across the board and the forecast
> indicates an increase in Webtv users."
>
> "Is my .sig delimiter broken? Really? You're sure? Awww,
> gee...that's too bad...for YOU!" `, )

>Norton! What a pain in the butt!!!

>I've just spent a few days trying to do something really simple, and
>I'm furious!!!!

Ive heard that F-Secure is one of the BEST for stopping virus's. I
used it years ago and loved it unfortunately dont have it now.

Spam blockers are entirely different beast and have to use a different
set of heuristics. I had a similar problem about 4 years ago but it
did not have to do with the size of the image it had to do with the
name of the image.

I was using Norton and had taken pictures of banners at a parade and
was posting banner.gif to the web site. I couldnt see it! Called the
client he could see it fine. Finally figured out Norton antispam as
blocking my pictures of parade banners because I named it banner.gif
and thats a common name for spam banners.

Its always a good idea to write valid HTML/XHTML code for the search
engines.

Earl




On Apr 3, 8:42 pm, photoguy_... [at] yahoo.com wrote:
> Norton! What a pain in the butt!!!
>
> I've just spent a few days trying to do something really simple, and
> I'm furious!!!!
>
> I took some pictures on the weekend, and downloaded Web Picture
> Creator 1.8.
> Let's put them on my new domain I thought. Yeah right.
>
> Web Picture Creator 1.8 worked easily enough. After I cleared out
> some space.
> (turned that my hard drive was bad, and that wasted enough hours!)
>
> Then I uploaded everything to my domain. The web page loaded.
> But I can't see the pictures.
>
> I call the ISP. They can see the pictures. Hmm!
>
> The Norton logs say:
>
> Content Blocked:
>
> Date Time: 4/3/2007 2:38:55 PM
> User:
> Action: Blocked
> Type: Ad
> URL:http://www.?domain?.com/?directory?/index.html
> Data: IMG src="thumbnails/thumb_DSC_0973.JPG" (Reason: width=120
> height=80)
>
> I call Norton and finally get someone in India.
>
> Turn off ad blocking, and popup blocking. It works.
> So, Norton is the culprit.
>
> Norton Internet Security
> Status and settings,
> Privacy control
> Configure
> Advanced
> Ad blocking
>
> Spend about 2 hours with Norton on the phone.
> The guy's solution: reinstall!
>
> I say No way. Send the expert.
>
> Eventually get a call back later from Symantec. The brains this
> time.
>
> We install TeamView. From:http://www.dyngate.com/licensing/
> It allows him to see my machine.
>
> He checks the webpage at:
>
> http://validator.w3.org/
>
> Below are the results of attempting to parse this document with an
> SGML parser.
>
> Error Line 15 column 162: required attribute "ALT" not specified.
> ...DSC_0961.JPG" width="120" height="80"></a></div></td>The attribute
> given above is required for an element that you've used, but you have
> omitted it. For instance, in most HTML and XHTML document types the
> "type" attribute is required on the "script" element and the "alt"
> attribute is required for the "img" element.
>
> Typical values for type are type="text/css" for <style> and type="text/
> javascript" for <script>.
>
> It says that the problem is that the website is missing the > sign
> after: height="80"
>
> Norton interprets this as a potential problem.
>
> I change the HTML To:
>
> <tr>
> <td valign="top" width="120"><div align="center"><a href="photos/
> DSC_0961.html"><img class="thumb" src="thumbnails/thumb_DSC_0961.JPG"
> width="120" height="80" alt="picture" > </a></div></td>
> <td valign="top" width="120"><div align="center"><a href="photos/
> DSC_0962.html"><img class="thumb" src="thumbnails/thumb_DSC_0962.JPG"
> width="120" height="80" alt="picture" > </a></div></td>
>
> But, I still have problems!!!! I still can't see the images.
>
> But the guy at my ISP can. And my friends can.
>
> But if that's not enough, get this!!!!
>
> Now, after I refresh the webpage, major parts of the HTML don't even
> come back in the browser!!!
>
> <tr>
>
> <td valign="top" width="120"><div align="center"><a href="photos/
> DSC_0961.html"> </a></div></td>
> <td valign="top" width="120"><div align="center"><a href="photos/
> DSC_0962.html"> </a></div></td>
>
> The whole IMG tag is now missing!!!!
> The guy at my ISP can see it.
> But it does not get through the Norton on my machine!
>
> I can understand some kinds of strange code. But this is just pure
> very simple HTML code. No java, javascript, asp, etc.
>
> Can you believe it?????
>
> I've spent at least 5 hours trying to deal with this!!!!
>
> What is a better security system than Norton????

In comp.security.firewalls Onideus Mad Hatter <usenet [at] backwater-productions.net> wrote:
> >>You can't fix stupid.
> >Then you can't protect stupid either.
> Sure you can...

But, believe me, not with Norton InSecurity ;-)

Yours,
VB.
--
"Terror eignet sich mehr als irgendeine andere militärische Strategie dazu,
die Bevölkerung zu manipulieren."
(Dr. Daniele Ganser, 2005)
<http://www.auchdieserschwachsinnmussinsinternet.de/>

On Apr 4, 9:12 pm, ray <r... [at] zianet.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 11:25:29 -0700, Onideus Mad Hatter wrote:
> > On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 12:05:39 -0600, ray <r... [at] zianet.com> wrote:
>
> >>> Linux is great for a LOT of things...a desktop environment REALLY
> >>> isn't one of them though. If you're THAT fucking stupid...go get a
> >>> Mac, stay the fuck away from Linux and quit infesting it with your
> >>> stupid.
>
> >>I guess I must be that stupid. I've been using the Linux desktops -
> >>specifically Gnome and KDE on various distributions for about seven years
> >>now. I've also installed eight Linux internet computers at the local
> >>library which have run virtually without OS maintenance (and more
> >>importantly without patron complaint) for over two years now.
>
> >>> Or, if you'd like trip and look stupid, by all means, attempt to
> >>> defend your failing position of Linux as a desktop environment...I'll
> >>> very much enjoy ripping it to pieces... `, )
>
> >>Perhaps you'd like to give me some specific shortcomings you've found with
> >>Linux as a desktop environment - I've already spelled out the one that
> >>I've found.
>
> > 1. teh driver support is SHIT, most times, even if something DOES
> > work...yeah...it's not even coming anywhere the fuck remotely close to
> > actually making use of the hardware's full potential.
>
> I not familiar with the 'teh driver', but I find that things work for me.
> Epson photo printer, Brother laser printer, Epson scanner . . . Generally
> I find that they work at least as well as MS and certainly better than
> with vista.
>
>
>
> > 2. obviously gaming is limited. Wine will work with VERY simplistic
> > applications, but you start tryin to use it on high end
> > stuff...mmm...dunno work so good.
>
> Can't comment on that. I don't spend much time playing games on Linux.
> Figured that would be a good excuse for a game console if I ever much got
> into it. BTW - my daughter (B.S. with double major in math and computer
> science) does her games on game consoles.
>
>
>
> > 3. there's a LOT of specialized Windows software that simply will not
> > work on Linux and often there is either no alternative or if there is
> > an alternative it's not as good as the Windows one.
>
> There might be a few. The only thing I've not been able to find that I
> looked for was a simple program to print greeting cards. So we run that on
> Linux via WINE.
>
>
>
> > 4. development platforms and distribution formats like Flash, most
> > often Linux is the LAST os they even consider since it's hardly in use
> > by anybody as a desktop environment. That means if you're using
> > Windows you ALWAYS get first view of any new and emerging tech, where
> > as with Linux you often have to wait a year or two before they'll even
> > bother to port it. I mean just look at how long it took them to get
> > Flash 9 for Linux...hell it was so far behind they SKIPPED an entire
> > version. So for almost two years Windows and Mac users had exclusive
> > access to Flash 8 and later Flash 9 content before they FINALLY got it
> > on Linux (and it's still only a beta...although so far it's worked
> > with everything I've thrown at it).
>
> Not much to comment on there either. I've always figured that content was
> much more important than glitz.
>

Which is true. Flash 9 is a content delivery system. Probably the most
IMPORTANT one over the coming years, now that web delivered video is
the fastest growing element of the WWW.

Linux desktops are not ready; not because they aren't stable or
capable (arguably). It's because if it goes wrong, it's VERY hard to
get support, the errors are generally meaningless. There is a very
thin veneer of a UI in Linux. Cracks into the complex OS world beneath
the UI are all over the place.

> The point about malware is: why should I have to keep expending resources
> just because the base OS is so riddled with holes? I've got a lot better
> things to do with my time and money.

Use a Mac.

> I'll reiterate that the patrons at the local library have been happily
> surfing the net, doing office apps, editing pictures, etc. for over two
> years now on Linux desktops and we have yet to hear a complaint. The
> systems just work.

Only because they don't know what they're missing out on.

> BTW - I've seen the point made many times that profanity is simply a
> crutch for a weak mind. Now I believe it.

Despite Hatters lack of social skills, he has made some valid points.
Unless you have a pet Linux nerd, avoid it like the plague.

On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 03:41:48 -0700, SpaceGirl wrote:

> On Apr 4, 9:12 pm, ray <r... [at] zianet.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 11:25:29 -0700, Onideus Mad Hatter wrote:
>> > On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 12:05:39 -0600, ray <r... [at] zianet.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>> Linux is great for a LOT of things...a desktop environment REALLY
>> >>> isn't one of them though. If you're THAT fucking stupid...go get a
>> >>> Mac, stay the fuck away from Linux and quit infesting it with your
>> >>> stupid.
>>
>> >>I guess I must be that stupid. I've been using the Linux desktops -
>> >>specifically Gnome and KDE on various distributions for about seven years
>> >>now. I've also installed eight Linux internet computers at the local
>> >>library which have run virtually without OS maintenance (and more
>> >>importantly without patron complaint) for over two years now.
>>
>> >>> Or, if you'd like trip and look stupid, by all means, attempt to
>> >>> defend your failing position of Linux as a desktop environment...I'll
>> >>> very much enjoy ripping it to pieces... `, )
>>
>> >>Perhaps you'd like to give me some specific shortcomings you've found with
>> >>Linux as a desktop environment - I've already spelled out the one that
>> >>I've found.
>>
>> > 1. teh driver support is SHIT, most times, even if something DOES
>> > work...yeah...it's not even coming anywhere the fuck remotely close to
>> > actually making use of the hardware's full potential.
>>
>> I not familiar with the 'teh driver', but I find that things work for me.
>> Epson photo printer, Brother laser printer, Epson scanner . . . Generally
>> I find that they work at least as well as MS and certainly better than
>> with vista.
>>
>>
>>
>> > 2. obviously gaming is limited. Wine will work with VERY simplistic
>> > applications, but you start tryin to use it on high end
>> > stuff...mmm...dunno work so good.
>>
>> Can't comment on that. I don't spend much time playing games on Linux.
>> Figured that would be a good excuse for a game console if I ever much got
>> into it. BTW - my daughter (B.S. with double major in math and computer
>> science) does her games on game consoles.
>>
>>
>>
>> > 3. there's a LOT of specialized Windows software that simply will not
>> > work on Linux and often there is either no alternative or if there is
>> > an alternative it's not as good as the Windows one.
>>
>> There might be a few. The only thing I've not been able to find that I
>> looked for was a simple program to print greeting cards. So we run that on
>> Linux via WINE.
>>
>>
>>
>> > 4. development platforms and distribution formats like Flash, most
>> > often Linux is the LAST os they even consider since it's hardly in use
>> > by anybody as a desktop environment. That means if you're using
>> > Windows you ALWAYS get first view of any new and emerging tech, where
>> > as with Linux you often have to wait a year or two before they'll even
>> > bother to port it. I mean just look at how long it took them to get
>> > Flash 9 for Linux...hell it was so far behind they SKIPPED an entire
>> > version. So for almost two years Windows and Mac users had exclusive
>> > access to Flash 8 and later Flash 9 content before they FINALLY got it
>> > on Linux (and it's still only a beta...although so far it's worked
>> > with everything I've thrown at it).
>>
>> Not much to comment on there either. I've always figured that content was
>> much more important than glitz.
>>
>
> Which is true. Flash 9 is a content delivery system. Probably the most
> IMPORTANT one over the coming years, now that web delivered video is
> the fastest growing element of the WWW.
>
> Linux desktops are not ready; not because they aren't stable or
> capable (arguably). It's because if it goes wrong, it's VERY hard to
> get support, the errors are generally meaningless. There is a very
> thin veneer of a UI in Linux. Cracks into the complex OS world beneath
> the UI are all over the place.

I see. You have not actually used Linux, have you. Simply spouting the
same old mantra.

>
>> The point about malware is: why should I have to keep expending resources
>> just because the base OS is so riddled with holes? I've got a lot better
>> things to do with my time and money.
>
> Use a Mac.

I can't afford a mac, which BTW is based on BSD Unix which is quite
similar to Linux.

>
>> I'll reiterate that the patrons at the local library have been happily
>> surfing the net, doing office apps, editing pictures, etc. for over two
>> years now on Linux desktops and we have yet to hear a complaint. The
>> systems just work.
>
> Only because they don't know what they're missing out on.
>
>> BTW - I've seen the point made many times that profanity is simply a
>> crutch for a weak mind. Now I believe it.
>
> Despite Hatters lack of social skills, he has made some valid points.
> Unless you have a pet Linux nerd, avoid it like the plague.

If you were to actually try it, you might change your mind; but I gather
there is little chance of that happening.

ray wrote:
>> Linux desktops are not ready; not because they aren't stable or
>> capable (arguably). It's because if it goes wrong, it's VERY hard to
>> get support, the errors are generally meaningless. There is a very
>> thin veneer of a UI in Linux. Cracks into the complex OS world beneath
>> the UI are all over the place.
>
> I see. You have not actually used Linux, have you. Simply spouting the
> same old mantra.

Predictable reply from a Linux person?

I've used Redhat, SuSE and Fedora Core, all in anger. WE don't have any
Linux machines here any more -- just Macs and our Windows servers.

>>> The point about malware is: why should I have to keep expending resources
>>> just because the base OS is so riddled with holes? I've got a lot better
>>> things to do with my time and money.
>> Use a Mac.
>
> I can't afford a mac, which BTW is based on BSD Unix which is quite
> similar to Linux.

Under the hood yes, but what user should care about that? None. It's not
relevant. Do you know what software my TV runs? No. Because you don't
need to know.

And you cannot hold up ANY Linux UI against Tiger.

>>> I'll reiterate that the patrons at the local library have been happily
>>> surfing the net, doing office apps, editing pictures, etc. for over two
>>> years now on Linux desktops and we have yet to hear a complaint. The
>>> systems just work.
>> Only because they don't know what they're missing out on.
>>
>>> BTW - I've seen the point made many times that profanity is simply a
>>> crutch for a weak mind. Now I believe it.
>> Despite Hatters lack of social skills, he has made some valid points.
>> Unless you have a pet Linux nerd, avoid it like the plague.
>
> If you were to actually try it, you might change your mind; but I gather
> there is little chance of that happening.


When will people wake up!? Computers are a means to an end. Who cares if
it's Linux, Windows or OS X. It has to be fit for purpose, do what it's
supposed to do.


--

x theSpaceGirl (miranda)


### future media, video, flash, animation [at]

# http://www.northleithmill.com


### music industry web & promotion [at]

# http://www.digitalharmony.co.uk


# Remove NO SPAM to email

# This message must not be reproduced anywhere but Usenet & GoogleGroups

# Copyright (c) digitalharmony

ray wrote:

>> Unless you have a pet Linux nerd, avoid it like the plague.
>
> If you were to actually try it, you might change your mind; but I gather
> there is little chance of that happening.

Ray, don't bother - you're talking to the 'eat shit - a million flies
can't be wrong.' brigade!

Jim Ford

On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 03:41:48 -0700, SpaceGirl wrote:

> On Apr 4, 9:12 pm, ray <r... [at] zianet.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 11:25:29 -0700, Onideus Mad Hatter wrote:
>> > On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 12:05:39 -0600, ray <r... [at] zianet.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>> Linux is great for a LOT of things...a desktop environment REALLY
>> >>> isn't one of them though. If you're THAT fucking stupid...go get a
>> >>> Mac, stay the fuck away from Linux and quit infesting it with your
>> >>> stupid.
>>
>> >>I guess I must be that stupid. I've been using the Linux desktops -
>> >>specifically Gnome and KDE on various distributions for about seven years
>> >>now. I've also installed eight Linux internet computers at the local
>> >>library which have run virtually without OS maintenance (and more
>> >>importantly without patron complaint) for over two years now.
>>
>> >>> Or, if you'd like trip and look stupid, by all means, attempt to
>> >>> defend your failing position of Linux as a desktop environment...I'll
>> >>> very much enjoy ripping it to pieces... `, )
>>
>> >>Perhaps you'd like to give me some specific shortcomings you've found with
>> >>Linux as a desktop environment - I've already spelled out the one that
>> >>I've found.
>>
>> > 1. teh driver support is SHIT, most times, even if something DOES
>> > work...yeah...it's not even coming anywhere the fuck remotely close to
>> > actually making use of the hardware's full potential.
>>
>> I not familiar with the 'teh driver', but I find that things work for me.
>> Epson photo printer, Brother laser printer, Epson scanner . . . Generally
>> I find that they work at least as well as MS and certainly better than
>> with vista.
>>
>>
>>
>> > 2. obviously gaming is limited. Wine will work with VERY simplistic
>> > applications, but you start tryin to use it on high end
>> > stuff...mmm...dunno work so good.
>>
>> Can't comment on that. I don't spend much time playing games on Linux.
>> Figured that would be a good excuse for a game console if I ever much got
>> into it. BTW - my daughter (B.S. with double major in math and computer
>> science) does her games on game consoles.
>>
>>
>>
>> > 3. there's a LOT of specialized Windows software that simply will not
>> > work on Linux and often there is either no alternative or if there is
>> > an alternative it's not as good as the Windows one.
>>
>> There might be a few. The only thing I've not been able to find that I
>> looked for was a simple program to print greeting cards. So we run that on
>> Linux via WINE.
>>
>>
>>
>> > 4. development platforms and distribution formats like Flash, most
>> > often Linux is the LAST os they even consider since it's hardly in use
>> > by anybody as a desktop environment. That means if you're using
>> > Windows you ALWAYS get first view of any new and emerging tech, where
>> > as with Linux you often have to wait a year or two before they'll even
>> > bother to port it. I mean just look at how long it took them to get
>> > Flash 9 for Linux...hell it was so far behind they SKIPPED an entire
>> > version. So for almost two years Windows and Mac users had exclusive
>> > access to Flash 8 and later Flash 9 content before they FINALLY got it
>> > on Linux (and it's still only a beta...although so far it's worked
>> > with everything I've thrown at it).
>>
>> Not much to comment on there either. I've always figured that content was
>> much more important than glitz.
>>
>
> Which is true. Flash 9 is a content delivery system. Probably the most
> IMPORTANT one over the coming years, now that web delivered video is
> the fastest growing element of the WWW.
>

If I were much into 'flash' I guess I'd download the Linux Flash plugin
which is available from Adobe.

> Linux desktops are not ready; not because they aren't stable or
> capable (arguably). It's because if it goes wrong, it's VERY hard to
> get support, the errors are generally meaningless. There is a very
> thin veneer of a UI in Linux. Cracks into the complex OS world beneath
> the UI are all over the place.

You're quite right. It's incredibly hard to find Linux support. It takes
all the effort of posting a query to the appropriate news group - as
opposed to all the wonderful free support you get from MS.

>
>> The point about malware is: why should I have to keep expending resources
>> just because the base OS is so riddled with holes? I've got a lot better
>> things to do with my time and money.
>
> Use a Mac.
>
>> I'll reiterate that the patrons at the local library have been happily
>> surfing the net, doing office apps, editing pictures, etc. for over two
>> years now on Linux desktops and we have yet to hear a complaint. The
>> systems just work.
>
> Only because they don't know what they're missing out on.
>
>> BTW - I've seen the point made many times that profanity is simply a
>> crutch for a weak mind. Now I believe it.
>
> Despite Hatters lack of social skills, he has made some valid points.
> Unless you have a pet Linux nerd, avoid it like the plague.


There are a number of varied reasons why an individual might prefer to use
MS over Linux. There are also a number of reasons why an individual might
prefer to use Linux over MS. The categorical denial that "Linux is not
ready for the desktop" is not a valid one. It is B.S. I can make a MUCH
better argument that MS is not ready for the internet.

On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 17:49:15 +0100, SpaceGirl wrote:

> ray wrote:
>>> Linux desktops are not ready; not because they aren't stable or
>>> capable (arguably). It's because if it goes wrong, it's VERY hard to
>>> get support, the errors are generally meaningless. There is a very
>>> thin veneer of a UI in Linux. Cracks into the complex OS world beneath
>>> the UI are all over the place.
>>
>> I see. You have not actually used Linux, have you. Simply spouting the
>> same old mantra.
>
> Predictable reply from a Linux person?
>
> I've used Redhat, SuSE and Fedora Core, all in anger. WE don't have any
> Linux machines here any more -- just Macs and our Windows servers.

When? Certainly not within the last year or two or you would know that
Adobe now has a Linux 'flash' plugin available from it's website.

>
>>>> The point about malware is: why should I have to keep expending resources
>>>> just because the base OS is so riddled with holes? I've got a lot better
>>>> things to do with my time and money.
>>> Use a Mac.
>>
>> I can't afford a mac, which BTW is based on BSD Unix which is quite
>> similar to Linux.
>
> Under the hood yes, but what user should care about that? None. It's not
> relevant. Do you know what software my TV runs? No. Because you don't
> need to know.

Most users should care because it reflects immediately on both security
and stability. What good does it do to have the 'best' software in the
world that cost you hundreds of dollars if the machine keeps crashing.

>
> And you cannot hold up ANY Linux UI against Tiger.

Sure I can. Any of a dozen or more.

>
>>>> I'll reiterate that the patrons at the local library have been happily
>>>> surfing the net, doing office apps, editing pictures, etc. for over two
>>>> years now on Linux desktops and we have yet to hear a complaint. The
>>>> systems just work.
>>> Only because they don't know what they're missing out on.
>>>
>>>> BTW - I've seen the point made many times that profanity is simply a
>>>> crutch for a weak mind. Now I believe it.
>>> Despite Hatters lack of social skills, he has made some valid points.
>>> Unless you have a pet Linux nerd, avoid it like the plague.
>>
>> If you were to actually try it, you might change your mind; but I gather
>> there is little chance of that happening.
>
>
> When will people wake up!? Computers are a means to an end. Who cares if
> it's Linux, Windows or OS X. It has to be fit for purpose, do what it's
> supposed to do.

Exactly. And I maintain that MS is not fit for the job for the average
users for two reasons (both ameleorated by running Linux) - it costs too
much (plus the several hundred dollars you need to make it productive) and
it takes too much admin time to keep it running safely.

In comp.security.firewalls ray <ray [at] zianet.com> wrote:
> I can't afford a mac

MacMinis are cheap.

> which BTW is based on BSD Unix which is quite
> similar to Linux.

The BSD in a Mac is quite strange ;-) Have a look at this perverted
peace of software Apple is calling a "kernel" ;-)

Yours,
VB.
--
"Terror eignet sich mehr als irgendeine andere militärische Strategie dazu,
die Bevölkerung zu manipulieren."
(Dr. Daniele Ganser, 2005)
<http://www.auchdieserschwachsinnmussinsinternet.de/>

In comp.security.firewalls SpaceGirl <nothespacegirlspam [at] subhuman.net> wrote:
> And you cannot hold up ANY Linux UI against Tiger.

Depends on what you need. Actually, we're using Macs with OSX for all of
our non-technicians. I'm personally writing this on a MacBook Pro. But
for daily work, I prefer Fluxbox on Debian GNU/Linux (coming from
WindowMaker), because it's so much faster. Of course, I'm typting this
text into a terminal, which is connected via SSH to a Slowlaris machine
anyways ;-)

> When will people wake up!? Computers are a means to an end. Who cares if
> it's Linux, Windows or OS X. It has to be fit for purpose, do what it's
> supposed to do.

Yes.

> # This message must not be reproduced anywhere but Usenet & GoogleGroups

Ridiculous.

Yours,
VB.
--
"Terror eignet sich mehr als irgendeine andere militärische Strategie dazu,
die Bevölkerung zu manipulieren."
(Dr. Daniele Ganser, 2005)
<http://www.auchdieserschwachsinnmussinsinternet.de/>

ray wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 17:49:15 +0100, SpaceGirl wrote:
>
>> ray wrote:
>>>> Linux desktops are not ready; not because they aren't stable or
>>>> capable (arguably). It's because if it goes wrong, it's VERY hard to
>>>> get support, the errors are generally meaningless. There is a very
>>>> thin veneer of a UI in Linux. Cracks into the complex OS world beneath
>>>> the UI are all over the place.
>>> I see. You have not actually used Linux, have you. Simply spouting the
>>> same old mantra.
>> Predictable reply from a Linux person?
>>
>> I've used Redhat, SuSE and Fedora Core, all in anger. WE don't have any
>> Linux machines here any more -- just Macs and our Windows servers.
>
> When? Certainly not within the last year or two or you would know that
> Adobe now has a Linux 'flash' plugin available from it's website.
>

That's the Flash Player, love. Not Flash itself. If you actually want to
create Flash on Linux you're screwed.

>> Under the hood yes, but what user should care about that? None. It's not
>> relevant. Do you know what software my TV runs? No. Because you don't
>> need to know.
>
> Most users should care because it reflects immediately on both security
> and stability. What good does it do to have the 'best' software in the
> world that cost you hundreds of dollars if the machine keeps crashing.

No they shouldn't Do you need to know how your car works to drive it?

>> And you cannot hold up ANY Linux UI against Tiger.
>
> Sure I can. Any of a dozen or more.

Name one that even comes close.

>> When will people wake up!? Computers are a means to an end. Who cares if
>> it's Linux, Windows or OS X. It has to be fit for purpose, do what it's
>> supposed to do.
>
> Exactly. And I maintain that MS is not fit for the job for the average
> users for two reasons (both ameleorated by running Linux) - it costs too
> much (plus the several hundred dollars you need to make it productive) and
> it takes too much admin time to keep it running safely.

I agree with that!


--

x theSpaceGirl (miranda)


### future media, video, flash, animation [at]

# http://www.northleithmill.com


### music industry web & promotion [at]

# http://www.digitalharmony.co.uk


# Remove NO SPAM to email

# This message must not be reproduced anywhere but Usenet & GoogleGroups

# Copyright (c) digitalharmony

ray wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 03:41:48 -0700, SpaceGirl wrote:
>
>> On Apr 4, 9:12 pm, ray <r... [at] zianet.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 11:25:29 -0700, Onideus Mad Hatter wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 12:05:39 -0600, ray <r... [at] zianet.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Linux is great for a LOT of things...a desktop environment REALLY
>>>>>> isn't one of them though. If you're THAT fucking stupid...go get a
>>>>>> Mac, stay the fuck away from Linux and quit infesting it with your
>>>>>> stupid.
>>>>> I guess I must be that stupid. I've been using the Linux desktops -
>>>>> specifically Gnome and KDE on various distributions for about seven years
>>>>> now. I've also installed eight Linux internet computers at the local
>>>>> library which have run virtually without OS maintenance (and more
>>>>> importantly without patron complaint) for over two years now.
>>>>>> Or, if you'd like trip and look stupid, by all means, attempt to
>>>>>> defend your failing position of Linux as a desktop environment...I'll
>>>>>> very much enjoy ripping it to pieces... `, )
>>>>> Perhaps you'd like to give me some specific shortcomings you've found with
>>>>> Linux as a desktop environment - I've already spelled out the one that
>>>>> I've found.
>>>> 1. teh driver support is SHIT, most times, even if something DOES
>>>> work...yeah...it's not even coming anywhere the fuck remotely close to
>>>> actually making use of the hardware's full potential.
>>> I not familiar with the 'teh driver', but I find that things work for me.
>>> Epson photo printer, Brother laser printer, Epson scanner . . . Generally
>>> I find that they work at least as well as MS and certainly better than
>>> with vista.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> 2. obviously gaming is limited. Wine will work with VERY simplistic
>>>> applications, but you start tryin to use it on high end
>>>> stuff...mmm...dunno work so good.
>>> Can't comment on that. I don't spend much time playing games on Linux.
>>> Figured that would be a good excuse for a game console if I ever much got
>>> into it. BTW - my daughter (B.S. with double major in math and computer
>>> science) does her games on game consoles.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> 3. there's a LOT of specialized Windows software that simply will not
>>>> work on Linux and often there is either no alternative or if there is
>>>> an alternative it's not as good as the Windows one.
>>> There might be a few. The only thing I've not been able to find that I
>>> looked for was a simple program to print greeting cards. So we run that on
>>> Linux via WINE.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> 4. development platforms and distribution formats like Flash, most
>>>> often Linux is the LAST os they even consider since it's hardly in use
>>>> by anybody as a desktop environment. That means if you're using
>>>> Windows you ALWAYS get first view of any new and emerging tech, where
>>>> as with Linux you often have to wait a year or two before they'll even
>>>> bother to port it. I mean just look at how long it took them to get
>>>> Flash 9 for Linux...hell it was so far behind they SKIPPED an entire
>>>> version. So for almost two years Windows and Mac users had exclusive
>>>> access to Flash 8 and later Flash 9 content before they FINALLY got it
>>>> on Linux (and it's still only a beta...although so far it's worked
>>>> with everything I've thrown at it).
>>> Not much to comment on there either. I've always figured that content was
>>> much more important than glitz.
>>>
>> Which is true. Flash 9 is a content delivery system. Probably the most
>> IMPORTANT one over the coming years, now that web delivered video is
>> the fastest growing element of the WWW.
>>
>
> If I were much into 'flash' I guess I'd download the Linux Flash plugin
> which is available from Adobe.
>
>> Linux desktops are not ready; not because they aren't stable or
>> capable (arguably). It's because if it goes wrong, it's VERY hard to
>> get support, the errors are generally meaningless. There is a very
>> thin veneer of a UI in Linux. Cracks into the complex OS world beneath
>> the UI are all over the place.
>
> You're quite right. It's incredibly hard to find Linux support. It takes
> all the effort of posting a query to the appropriate news group - as
> opposed to all the wonderful free support you get from MS.
>
>>> The point about malware is: why should I have to keep expending resources
>>> just because the base OS is so riddled with holes? I've got a lot better
>>> things to do with my time and money.
>> Use a Mac.
>>
>>> I'll reiterate that the patrons at the local library have been happily
>>> surfing the net, doing office apps, editing pictures, etc. for over two
>>> years now on Linux desktops and we have yet to hear a complaint. The
>>> systems just work.
>> Only because they don't know what they're missing out on.
>>
>>> BTW - I've seen the point made many times that profanity is simply a
>>> crutch for a weak mind. Now I believe it.
>> Despite Hatters lack of social skills, he has made some valid points.
>> Unless you have a pet Linux nerd, avoid it like the plague.
>
>
> There are a number of varied reasons why an individual might prefer to use
> MS over Linux. There are also a number of reasons why an individual might
> prefer to use Linux over MS. The categorical denial that "Linux is not
> ready for the desktop" is not a valid one. It is B.S. I can make a MUCH
> better argument that MS is not ready for the internet.
>

I give up.


--

x theSpaceGirl (miranda)


### future media, video, flash, animation [at]

# http://www.northleithmill.com


### music industry web & promotion [at]

# http://www.digitalharmony.co.uk


# Remove NO SPAM to email

# This message must not be reproduced anywhere but Usenet & GoogleGroups

# Copyright (c) digitalharmony

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 22:06:07 +0100, SpaceGirl wrote:

> ray wrote:
>> On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 17:49:15 +0100, SpaceGirl wrote:
>>
>>> ray wrote:
>>>>> Linux desktops are not ready; not because they aren't stable or
>>>>> capable (arguably). It's because if it goes wrong, it's VERY hard to
>>>>> get support, the errors are generally meaningless. There is a very
>>>>> thin veneer of a UI in Linux. Cracks into the complex OS world beneath
>>>>> the UI are all over the place.
>>>> I see. You have not actually used Linux, have you. Simply spouting the
>>>> same old mantra.
>>> Predictable reply from a Linux person?
>>>
>>> I've used Redhat, SuSE and Fedora Core, all in anger. WE don't have any
>>> Linux machines here any more -- just Macs and our Windows servers.
>>
>> When? Certainly not within the last year or two or you would know that
>> Adobe now has a Linux 'flash' plugin available from it's website.
>>
>
> That's the Flash Player, love. Not Flash itself. If you actually want to
> create Flash on Linux you're screwed.

That's OK, dearie. I don't want to. BTW what part of "there are good
reasons for selecting one OS over the other" is it that you don't get?


>
>>> Under the hood yes, but what user should care about that? None. It's not
>>> relevant. Do you know what software my TV runs? No. Because you don't
>>> need to know.
>>
>> Most users should care because it reflects immediately on both security
>> and stability. What good does it do to have the 'best' software in the
>> world that cost you hundreds of dollars if the machine keeps crashing.
>
> No they shouldn't Do you need to know how your car works to drive it?

That depends on whether I need to fix it on a daily basis.

>
>>> And you cannot hold up ANY Linux UI against Tiger.
>>
>> Sure I can. Any of a dozen or more.
>
> Name one that even comes close.

My opinion will probably be different from yours - I happen to think
gnome, xfce, and enlightenment are perfectly acceptable.

>
>>> When will people wake up!? Computers are a means to an end. Who cares if
>>> it's Linux, Windows or OS X. It has to be fit for purpose, do what it's
>>> supposed to do.
>>
>> Exactly. And I maintain that MS is not fit for the job for the average
>> users for two reasons (both ameleorated by running Linux) - it costs too
>> much (plus the several hundred dollars you need to make it productive) and
>> it takes too much admin time to keep it running safely.
>
> I agree with that!

ray wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 22:06:07 +0100, SpaceGirl wrote:
>
>> ray wrote:
> That's OK, dearie. I don't want to. BTW what part of "there are good
> reasons for selecting one OS over the other" is it that you don't get?

:)

There are plenty of good reasons why I WOULD recommend Linux for some
types of users; but casual users or inexperienced user... Linux isn't
ready. For lots of reasons. Basic examples being, say if the user wanted
to use broadband internet, chances are no drivers for their modem (at
least, none that come with the modem). No games to speak of. No tools
like iMovie or Windows Movie Maker. None of the linux distros I used had
any sort of photo management built in (Windows has mediocre support, OS
X has the excellent iPhoto). Also very little chance they will know
anyone who can help them fix their computer if it goes wrong, or them
being able to find a shop that will repair the install should anything
break. Yes you can find online support, but that's not much good if your
computer is broken is it? The list goes on and on... Linux simply is NOT
ready for the average user, and it's some years away from being ready.


>>>> Under the hood yes, but what user should care about that? None. It's not
>>>> relevant. Do you know what software my TV runs? No. Because you don't
>>>> need to know.
>>> Most users should care because it reflects immediately on both security
>>> and stability. What good does it do to have the 'best' software in the
>>> world that cost you hundreds of dollars if the machine keeps crashing.
>> No they shouldn't Do you need to know how your car works to drive it?
>
> That depends on whether I need to fix it on a daily basis.
>
>>>> And you cannot hold up ANY Linux UI against Tiger.
>>> Sure I can. Any of a dozen or more.
>> Name one that even comes close.
>
> My opinion will probably be different from yours - I happen to think
> gnome, xfce, and enlightenment are perfectly acceptable.

For an experienced computer person yes. All great programs.

--

x theSpaceGirl (miranda)


### future media, video, flash, animation [at]

# http://www.northleithmill.com


### music industry web & promotion [at]

# http://www.digitalharmony.co.uk


# Remove NO SPAM to email

# This message must not be reproduced anywhere but Usenet & GoogleGroups

# Copyright (c) digitalharmony

In article <pan.2007.04.05.22.52.18.973253 [at] zianet.com>, ray
<ray [at] zianet.com> wrote:

> >>> Under the hood yes, but what user should care about that? None. It's not
> >>> relevant. Do you know what software my TV runs? No. Because you don't
> >>> need to know.
> >>
> >> Most users should care because it reflects immediately on both security
> >> and stability. What good does it do to have the 'best' software in the
> >> world that cost you hundreds of dollars if the machine keeps crashing.
> >
> > No they shouldn't Do you need to know how your car works to drive it?
>
> That depends on whether I need to fix it on a daily basis.

why would anyone want to use something, regardless of what it is, that
needs to be fixed on a daily basis?

On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 03:12:32 -0700, nospam wrote:

> In article <pan.2007.04.05.22.52.18.973253 [at] zianet.com>, ray
> <ray [at] zianet.com> wrote:
>
>> >>> Under the hood yes, but what user should care about that? None. It's not
>> >>> relevant. Do you know what software my TV runs? No. Because you don't
>> >>> need to know.
>> >>
>> >> Most users should care because it reflects immediately on both security
>> >> and stability. What good does it do to have the 'best' software in the
>> >> world that cost you hundreds of dollars if the machine keeps crashing.
>> >
>> > No they shouldn't Do you need to know how your car works to drive it?
>>
>> That depends on whether I need to fix it on a daily basis.
>
> why would anyone want to use something, regardless of what it is, that
> needs to be fixed on a daily basis?

You'd have to ask all the folks running MS ;)

On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 11:07:14 +0100, SpaceGirl wrote:

> ray wrote:
>> On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 22:06:07 +0100, SpaceGirl wrote:
>>
>>> ray wrote:
>> That's OK, dearie. I don't want to. BTW what part of "there are good
>> reasons for selecting one OS over the other" is it that you don't get?
>
> :)
>
> There are plenty of good reasons why I WOULD recommend Linux for some
> types of users; but casual users or inexperienced user... Linux isn't
> ready. For lots of reasons. Basic examples being, say if the user wanted
> to use broadband internet, chances are no drivers for their modem (at
> least, none that come with the modem).

As you evidently don't know, most modern broadband setups today supply a
modem/router with an ethernet connection. It is a simple matter of
starting the computer and using a browser to access and setup the
modem/router and the process is essentially the same for MS, MAC and Linux.

> No games to speak of.

That's what they make game consoles for.

> No tools
> like iMovie or Windows Movie Maker. None of the linux distros I used had
> any sort of photo management built in (Windows has mediocre support, OS
> X has the excellent iPhoto).

You don't know what you are talking about. There are several such systems
available with almost every major Linux distribution.

> Also very little chance they will know
> anyone who can help them fix their computer if it goes wrong, or them
> being able to find a shop that will repair the install should anything
> break.

The kicker being, of course, that it does not break.

> Yes you can find online support, but that's not much good if
> your computer is broken is it?

Would seem like a compelling reason to start a LUG.

> The list goes on and on... Linux simply
> is NOT ready for the average user, and it's some years away from being
> ready.

That's your opinion, unsubstantiated by facts. My opinion, backed by 24000
free software packages and over two years of experience with a Linux setup
for public internet access is contrary to that. If I had not seen with my
own eyes eight linux seats running unattended for public internet access
at the local library with zero complaints for over two years, I might see
your point - but it is totally irrational.


>
>
>>>>> Under the hood yes, but what user should care about that? None. It's
>>>>> not relevant. Do you know what software my TV runs? No. Because you
>>>>> don't need to know.
>>>> Most users should care because it reflects immediately on both
>>>> security and stability. What good does it do to have the 'best'
>>>> software in the world that cost you hundreds of dollars if the
>>>> machine keeps crashing.
>>> No they shouldn't Do you need to know how your car works to drive it?
>>
>> That depends on whether I need to fix it on a daily basis.
>>
>>>>> And you cannot hold up ANY Linux UI against Tiger.
>>>> Sure I can. Any of a dozen or more.
>>> Name one that even comes close.
>>
>> My opinion will probably be different from yours - I happen to think
>> gnome, xfce, and enlightenment are perfectly acceptable.
>
> For an experienced computer person yes. All great programs.

In article <pan.2007.04.06.15.54.04.703112 [at] zianet.com>, ray
<ray [at] zianet.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 11:07:14 +0100, SpaceGirl wrote:
>
> > The list goes on and on... Linux simply
> > is NOT ready for the average user, and it's some years away from being
> > ready.
>
> That's your opinion, unsubstantiated by facts. My opinion, backed by 24000
> free software packages and over two years of experience with a Linux setup
> for public internet access is contrary to that. If I had not seen with my
> own eyes eight linux seats running unattended for public internet access
> at the local library with zero complaints for over two years, I might see
> your point - but it is totally irrational.

running a public internet access terminal is hardly the same thing as
making inroads into the mainstream desktop market.

wake me up when there's a linux version of adobe creative suite (since
this is crossposted to a photo newsgroup). or linux support for garmin
gps or apple's itunes music store. or many others.

On Apr 3, 8:42 pm, photoguy_... [at] yahoo.com wrote:
> Norton! What a pain in the butt!!!
>
> I've just spent a few days trying to do something really simple, and
> I'm furious!!!!
>
> I took some pictures on the weekend, and downloaded Web Picture
> Creator 1.8.
> Let's put them on my new domain I thought. Yeah right.
>
> Web Picture Creator 1.8 worked easily enough. After I cleared out
> some space.
> (turned that my hard drive was bad, and that wasted enough hours!)
>
> Then I uploaded everything to my domain. The web page loaded.
> But I can't see the pictures.
>
> I call the ISP. They can see the pictures. Hmm!
>
> The Norton logs say:
>
> Content Blocked:
>
> Date Time: 4/3/2007 2:38:55 PM
> User:
> Action: Blocked
> Type: Ad
> URL:http://www.?domain?.com/?directory?/index.html
> Data: IMG src="thumbnails/thumb_DSC_0973.JPG" (Reason: width=120
> height=80)
>
> I call Norton and finally get someone in India.
>
> Turn off ad blocking, and popup blocking. It works.
> So, Norton is the culprit.
>
> Norton Internet Security
> Status and settings,
> Privacy control
> Configure
> Advanced
> Ad blocking
>
> Spend about 2 hours with Norton on the phone.
> The guy's solution: reinstall!
>
> I say No way. Send the expert.
>
> Eventually get a call back later from Symantec. The brains this
> time.
>
> We install TeamView. From:http://www.dyngate.com/licensing/
> It allows him to see my machine.
>
> He checks the webpage at:
>
> http://validator.w3.org/
>
> Below are the results of attempting to parse this document with an
> SGML parser.
>
> Error Line 15 column 162: required attribute "ALT" not specified.
> ...DSC_0961.JPG" width="120" height="80"></a></div></td>The attribute
> given above is required for an element that you've used, but you have
> omitted it. For instance, in most HTML and XHTML document types the
> "type" attribute is required on the "script" element and the "alt"
> attribute is required for the "img" element.
>
> Typical values for type are type="text/css" for <style> and type="text/
> javascript" for <script>.
>
> It says that the problem is that the website is missing the > sign
> after: height="80"
>
> Norton interprets this as a potential problem.
>
> I change the HTML To:
>
> <tr>
> <td valign="top" width="120"><div align="center"><a href="photos/
> DSC_0961.html"><img class="thumb" src="thumbnails/thumb_DSC_0961.JPG"
> width="120" height="80" alt="picture" > </a></div></td>
> <td valign="top" width="120"><div align="center"><a href="photos/
> DSC_0962.html"><img class="thumb" src="thumbnails/thumb_DSC_0962.JPG"
> width="120" height="80" alt="picture" > </a></div></td>
>
> But, I still have problems!!!! I still can't see the images.
>
> But the guy at my ISP can. And my friends can.
>
> But if that's not enough, get this!!!!
>
> Now, after I refresh the webpage, major parts of the HTML don't even
> come back in the browser!!!
>
> <tr>
>
> <td valign="top" width="120"><div align="center"><a href="photos/
> DSC_0961.html"> </a></div></td>
> <td valign="top" width="120"><div align="center"><a href="photos/
> DSC_0962.html"> </a></div></td>
>
> The whole IMG tag is now missing!!!!
> The guy at my ISP can see it.
> But it does not get through the Norton on my machine!
>
> I can understand some kinds of strange code. But this is just pure
> very simple HTML code. No java, javascript, asp, etc.
>
> Can you believe it?????
>
> I've spent at least 5 hours trying to deal with this!!!!
>
> What is a better security system than Norton????

yeah, switch to mac and never install a "security" app. Just be smart
with what you let in.

In comp.security.firewalls nospam <nospam [at] nospam.invalid> wrote:
> wake me up when there's a linux version of adobe creative suite

Good morning:

http://www.scribus.net/
http://www.inkscape.org/
http://www.gimp.org/
http://www.koffice.org/krita/

> or linux support for garmin
> gps

Good morning: http://www.google.com/search?q=garmin+gps+linux

> or apple's itunes music store. or many others.

Apple tries not to allow this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SharpMusique

It's not, that there would be no software, with which this is possible,
but Apple is torpedoing the Free Software world here.

So Linux users will depend on this one, which is not satisfying.

http://frankscorner.org/index.php?p=itunes6

Yours,
VB.
--
"Terror eignet sich mehr als irgendeine andere militärische Strategie dazu,
die Bevölkerung zu manipulieren."
(Dr. Daniele Ganser, 2005)
<http://www.auchdieserschwachsinnmussinsinternet.de/>

ray wrote:
>> There are plenty of good reasons why I WOULD recommend Linux for some
>> types of users; but casual users or inexperienced user... Linux isn't
>> ready. For lots of reasons. Basic examples being, say if the user wanted
>> to use broadband internet, chances are no drivers for their modem (at
>> least, none that come with the modem).
>
> As you evidently don't know, most modern broadband setups today supply a
> modem/router with an ethernet connection. It is a simple matter of
> starting the computer and using a browser to access and setup the
> modem/router and the process is essentially the same for MS, MAC and Linux.

Nope. Not most ADSL ones. They're generally USB connected. At least hear
in the UK.


>> No games to speak of.
>
> That's what they make game consoles for.

Tell that to all the video cames houses that still make PC games. Or the
8 million World of Warcraft subscribers (PC and Mac only).

>> No tools
>> like iMovie or Windows Movie Maker. None of the linux distros I used had
>> any sort of photo management built in (Windows has mediocre support, OS
>> X has the excellent iPhoto).
>
> You don't know what you are talking about. There are several such systems
> available with almost every major Linux distribution.

Are you REALLY comparing? So I could take my camcorder to a generic
Linux install anywhere and simply plug it in and record? Dream on. No
installations. No drivers. Just works.

>> Also very little chance they will know
>> anyone who can help them fix their computer if it goes wrong, or them
>> being able to find a shop that will repair the install should anything
>> break.
>
> The kicker being, of course, that it does not break.

Once it's been setup. I'm not kicking Linux reliability here at all,
don't get me wrong. This is purely about usability.

>> Yes you can find online support, but that's not much good if
>> your computer is broken is it?
>
> Would seem like a compelling reason to start a LUG.

Agreed, but that's hardly going to help someone who does an install today.

>> The list goes on and on... Linux simply
>> is NOT ready for the average user, and it's some years away from being
>> ready.
>
> That's your opinion, unsubstantiated by facts. My opinion, backed by 24000

My opinion, as a professional user interface design, graphic designer
and computer user.

> free software packages and over two years of experience with a Linux setup
> for public internet access is contrary to that. If I had not seen with my
> own eyes eight linux seats running unattended for public internet access
> at the local library with zero complaints for over two years, I might see
> your point - but it is totally irrational.

Probably because of the environment? Your demographic?

1) Maybe they don't know any better
2) Public place, it's free, not likely to complain are they
3) All they are doing is looking up information, yes?

Plop an average 15 year old in front of one and see if they agree with
you. Sit your mother in front of one and give her an install disk for a
random application, see if she manages. Then try with Windows.


--

x theSpaceGirl (miranda)


### future media, video, flash, animation [at]

# http://www.northleithmill.com


### music industry web & promotion [at]

# http://www.digitalharmony.co.uk


# Remove NO SPAM to email

# This message must not be reproduced anywhere but Usenet & GoogleGroups

# Copyright (c) digitalharmony

On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 23:41:14 +0100, SpaceGirl wrote:

> ray wrote:
>>> There are plenty of good reasons why I WOULD recommend Linux for some
>>> types of users; but casual users or inexperienced user... Linux isn't
>>> ready. For lots of reasons. Basic examples being, say if the user wanted
>>> to use broadband internet, chances are no drivers for their modem (at
>>> least, none that come with the modem).
>>
>> As you evidently don't know, most modern broadband setups today supply a
>> modem/router with an ethernet connection. It is a simple matter of
>> starting the computer and using a browser to access and setup the
>> modem/router and the process is essentially the same for MS, MAC and Linux.
>
> Nope. Not most ADSL ones. They're generally USB connected. At least hear
> in the UK.
>
>
>>> No games to speak of.
>>
>> That's what they make game consoles for.
>
> Tell that to all the video cames houses that still make PC games. Or the
> 8 million World of Warcraft subscribers (PC and Mac only).
>
>>> No tools
>>> like iMovie or Windows Movie Maker. None of the linux distros I used had
>>> any sort of photo management built in (Windows has mediocre support, OS
>>> X has the excellent iPhoto).
>>
>> You don't know what you are talking about. There are several such systems
>> available with almost every major Linux distribution.
>
> Are you REALLY comparing? So I could take my camcorder to a generic
> Linux install anywhere and simply plug it in and record? Dream on. No
> installations. No drivers. Just works.
>
>>> Also very little chance they will know
>>> anyone who can help them fix their computer if it goes wrong, or them
>>> being able to find a shop that will repair the install should anything
>>> break.
>>
>> The kicker being, of course, that it does not break.
>
> Once it's been setup. I'm not kicking Linux reliability here at all,
> don't get me wrong. This is purely about usability.

OK - you've just contradicted yourself in one paragraph. Is it about setup
or is it about usability? I can understand why some folks might have a
little difficulty setting up Linux. Once it is set up it is no more
difficult to USE than MS or MAC - just a little different.

>
>>> Yes you can find online support, but that's not much good if
>>> your computer is broken is it?
>>
>> Would seem like a compelling reason to start a LUG.
>
> Agreed, but that's hardly going to help someone who does an install today.
>
>>> The list goes on and on... Linux simply
>>> is NOT ready for the average user, and it's some years away from being
>>> ready.
>>
>> That's your opinion, unsubstantiated by facts. My opinion, backed by 24000
>
> My opinion, as a professional user interface design, graphic designer
> and computer user.
>
>> free software packages and over two years of experience with a Linux setup
>> for public internet access is contrary to that. If I had not seen with my
>> own eyes eight linux seats running unattended for public internet access
>> at the local library with zero complaints for over two years, I might see
>> your point - but it is totally irrational.
>
> Probably because of the environment? Your demographic?
>
> 1) Maybe they don't know any better
> 2) Public place, it's free, not likely to complain are they

Haven't been to a library lately, have you. The patrons generally complain
about all sorts of things. They complain about the one hour session limits
- they complain about the internet filter - but they don't complain about
how the computers work.

> 3) All they are doing is looking up information, yes?

Yes. Looking up information, surfing the internet, using the office apps,
editing photos, doing geneology . . .

>
> Plop an average 15 year old in front of one and see if they agree with
> you. Sit your mother in front of one and give her an install disk for a
> random application, see if she manages. Then try with Windows.

As a matter of fact they computers are usually totally busy from shortly
after school is out until the library closes. Lots of teenagers. They
flock to the place - for one thing, it's a challenge to them to see if
they can break things - so far they have not been able to. BTW - they play
online games etc. and still no complaints.

I'd be happy to sit my mother in front of one, but she died last
September. If you give me a person unfamiliar with Linux and also
unfamiliar with MS, I'd be happy to perform the test - oh, that's right,
I've already done that. Linux is no more difficult to use than MS or MAC -
it's just a little different.