On Thu, 4 May 2000, Bayard Coolidge USG ZKO3-3/S20 wrote:
> Well, that sounds like an architectural design issue to me, so IMNSHO, it
> should be blamed on the Chief Architect at MS... :-)
Indeed. As I've said before, "After a through analysis of the software in
question, I have determined that the root cause of the problems is that the
program titles begin with 'Microsoft'."
People ask me why I dislike MS so much. I am honestly surprised when they
do. I have never, ever, in my entire life, *EVER* encountered a Microsoft
product that wasn't poorly designed, poorly implemented, poorly documented,
and poorly supported. MS products easily cost me more administration time
then all other tasks *combined*. By the time I die, I will likely have wasted
*years* fighting MS products -- if I don't have a frustration-induced
core nary episode first.
I have to ask: How can I *NOT* dislike MS so much?
On Thu, 4 May 2000, David Roberts wrote:
> Haven't played with M$ mail for a long time (ignorance is bliss, at
> times), so here comes a stupid question... Why don't the Admins turn
> off this "feature", or hasn't M$ given them the ability to do so?
How can I count the ways...
Centralized administration is something M$ still hasn't figured out. So, to
turn off a feature for everyone, you have to walk from workstation to
workstation, and manually do so.
MS products place different settings in various "locations" in the system
configuration data set (the "System" area of the registry, the "User" area of
the registry, .INI files in various locations, configuration files in
"Application Data" and "Profiles\$USER_NAME\Application Data", etc., etc., ad
infinitum, ad nauseum), so there is no way to be sure the setting you modify
will be the setting the user is actually using.
There is nothing to keep the users from turning it back on.
M$ products change their option set and UI layout with every release, so you
can't even count on the option being in the same place everywhere, or that MS
hasn't added a new "feature" that does the same thing elsewhere.
MS products have a tendency to "forget" their settings from time to time, so
there is no guaranteed it will *stay* switched off.
When the inevitable reinstall comes around, you have to do that all *again*.
> Sorry for the ignorant question (but my bliss was disturbed).
Perhaps a better answer would be: You're better off not knowing.
On Thu, 4 May 2000, Jerry Eckert wrote:
>> Unfortunatly, "Don't Open Attachments" doesn't solve the problem. With
>> Outlook and Outlook Express, If you have the "Auto Preview" turned on,
>> it will execute any VBScript that it finds embeded in the message. It's
>> a "feature". So, basically, if you have that feature enabled, it will
>> automatically execute the virus code.
>
> Wasn't there a patch to limit what the auto-executed scripts could do?
Several.
The fact that they needed to fix it at all is bad enough.
The fact that it took several tries really begs the question: What makes
anyone so sure they won't need several more?
> In any case, this feature is irrelevant in this case because the script is
> an attachment and can't be executed until the attachment is opened.
Some versions of Outlook have considered various Microsoft file formats to
have some sort of "special status", and open them without asking, even if the
feature was generally disabled.
On Thu, 4 May 2000, Derek Martin wrote:
> I think it boils down to people in general are not security paranoid
> nearly enough. Most people just think "it won't happen to me" or they
> simply don't know anything about securing a computer system, and haven't
> had any reason to consider it.
I think it's worse. Many of our clients think simple login passwords are a
pain in the butt, and routinely ask to have them disabled completely. They
consider security to be something to be *avoided whenever possible*. I want
to say Microsoft encourages this attitude, if for no other reason then to
stay on the topic of this message.
> The majority of the latest rash of viruses exploit weaknesses in MS Office
> and related products. The answer to plugging up this hole is to get
> people to STOP USING OFFICE.
Microsoft's entire business strategy seems to be dependent on their customer
base continuing to take it up the [expletive deleted] and *LIKE IT*. It is
bad enough that they treat their customers like [expletive deleted], but the
fact that most of their customers seem to *like* that treatment never fails to
astound me. I don't know which amazes me more, that MS thinks this policy
will work in the long term, or the fact that so far, they appear to be right.
> Why do management types insist that they need to do this?
Why do management types insist on anything? Rational thought certainly
isn't a factor in most cases.
> But no one will listen to this argument. I've made this point to people
> in the past and they either seem to think I'm joking, or they just ignore
> me entirely.
I think it was Scott McNeally (some big-wig at Sun, in any event) who said
they checked, and found something like *TWENTY GIGABYTES* of MS PowerPoint
presentations on their corporate network. So they banned MS PowerPoint.
Productivity increased by 25 percent. I think his statement was, "People
would think, 'Gee, I can't make any PowerPoint presentations. I guess I'll
have to do some work instead.'"
On Thu, 4 May 2000, Jerry Eckert wrote:
> And therein lies the hitch -- how to determine that the user really knows
> what they are doing.
User == Does not not what they are doing.
--
Ben Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Net Technologies, Inc. <http://www.ntisys.com>
Voice: (800)905-3049 x18 Fax: (978)499-7839
**********************************************************
To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with the following text in the
*body* (*not* the subject line) of the letter:
unsubscribe gnhlug
**********************************************************
