Mar 31, 2006 10:41 PST Yes Tom R iBozz did get it right. I applaud your defense. Thanks paolo
You said: >> I would like to point out, in a friendly way, that non-techy >> people may have to learn some techy stuff to be able to protect >> themselves. It's like when you start driving a car, you have >> to learn some automobile-techy stuff to be able to enjoy >> safely the new tool; > ~~~~~~~~~~ > > Sorry, iBozz got it right. > >> I want LS to protect my machine and to leave me in peace as much as >> possible whilst it is >> doing it. When it wants my confirmation of something I want simple >> explanations. > >> I accept that simple explanations can be irksome for those who do >> know their stuff, but a >> reasonable compromise would be much appreciated. > ~~~~~~~~~~ > Your analogy about autos flops. The amount of techie knowledge > required is minimal. The auto -- and a lot of other highly > complicated devices -- are appliances. > > The point of spending money and effort to use LittleSnitch is to have > an appliance that will, with minimal investment on the user's part, > protect the user against malicious exploitation of the user's > ignorance. > > Take all the energy you put into condescension and focus it on > explaining how to make a rational decision about Allow - allow until > quit - deny and stuff like that. > _______________________________________________ > Littlesnitch-talk mailing list > Littlesnitch-talk@obdev.at > http://at.obdev.at/mailman/listinfo/littlesnitch-talk _______________________________________________ Littlesnitch-talk mailing list Littlesnitch-talk@obdev.at http://at.obdev.at/mailman/listinfo/littlesnitch-talk
