Hello Simon,
On Fri, 10 Mar 2000 12:50:19 +0000 GMT your local time,
which was Friday, March 10, 2000, 7:50:19 PM (GMT+0700) my local time,
Simon wrote:
> How-do-you-do,
> Tracer, tracer, tracer! What ARE you talking about?
> First, not one IE5 upgrade that I have installed has ever knackered any of
> my Windows installations - any of the 5 PCs on my LAN.
I think my number of systems is a bit larger...
I see thousands per year...
In addition if you talk about your own system, likely you do things
in a way causing you the least problems.
I havent got that luxury as most systems are outside my control.
So if it is running and not causing problems and it isnt critical I am
not going to upgrade a customer.
Too much chance I end up wasting hours on a system due to something
else dying! Free of charge obviously if I mess it up!
PLUS complaints.
> Frankly, not
> upgrading to fix bugs is not a consideration at all.
I have seen bug upgrades installed after which for example some silly
game lost sound.
I know you arent interested in a disney Winny the Pooh game making
sound or not but tell that to the customer...
Especially after charging him for the download and upgrade!
He gets home and no more sound in that game.
Daughter complains, next day he is back.
> Bug updates, and
> security holes need patching...as Justin commented.
As far as I am concerned only if the user is in danger if he doesnt.
I make sure they run a decent firewall, a decent antivirus tool and
try to get them away from any MS related stuff as Outlook/Outlook
express.
It isnt even that difficult by telling them about the many virus
attacks on that stuff and that they can loose all their email...
If they really want the latest version of windows in most cases all
they have to do is walk to the nearest computer
software place and get themselves a copy.
> Simple as that. All I
> was wondering was where the option to browse in a separate process went to.
(?)
> 2) In any event. Sorry, but you are wrong about
> @Guard mate. @Guard DOES cause problems. Check your background processes
> every now and then when @Guard is simply installed. IAMSERV is running yes?
> Maybe you noticed also that @Guard doesn't seem to want to leave it there
> and when you then activate @Guard when you connect to the Internet, @Guard
> loads another occurrence of it again. This causes MAJOR probs & slow downs
> and hangs Internet Explorer, WIndows, TB!
No problem with it. My At guard loads at startup. It never hangs
anything in an obvious way.
And as you will know order of things loaded can make a significant
difference.
Under windows starting and releasing firewalls especially if multiple
protections are loaded is a good way to get them interfering in
unexpected ways.
So I always load them in the same order...
If I crash off I reboot so it all gets started the same way.
> Especially when you drop your
> connection and have @GUard shut down automatically or do it manually.
I donot shut it down , I reconnect.
> I really do like @Guard but have removed it from at least 7 peoples computers
> for the same complaints. I have given them ZOneAlarm to install because of
> this problem. NOT ONE person has had the same problem since its removal.
Try using BFTP with Zonealarm... I run the beta at present as a test.
Its a nice program but it doesnt give me enough control.
> I have to say that the problem occurs MORE frequently with people that have
> it installed but disabled at startup. I found that the problem was less
> severe when @Guard was run at startup and left running all the time. The
> chances then of IAMSERV being loaded twice are obviously then reduced
> considerably.
Which is what I do.
I control as much as possible what gets loaded in what order and it
can make a significant difference for system behaviour.
> "Lockdown2000 junk" <--- tracer...uhummm. OK, some people like ports to be
> completely stealthed. And some like to have their ports watched for one
> reason or another. Lockdown does open and listen to many ports unlike a
> Firewall, granted, and this does affect TCP/IP memory if you're listening to
> too many at once. OK, but I have generally found this not to be a problem
> when using Lockdown.
Check the websites, it was reviewed and tested in many places, it
doesnt do what it claims it does. Unless they changed it a lot...
> Yes, these kind of programs have been called 'hacker catchers' and often
> have a reputation of unfairly 'baiting' attackers or even putting yourself
> at risk. If you are somewhere referring to Steve Gibson's opinions that
> these apps are 'junk' (to also quote him) and that they are 'Evil Port
> Monitors'(as he says) then I think that is a bit OTT and designed only to
> create dependency on one persons opinions which suits his purpose, obviously.
Nope, I use them as well.
If I really get pestered by an insisting hacker he will end up
learning its not smart...
> I use my Firewall to have complete system stealth
> at other times. I think to say that Lockdown is a piece of junk is a bit
> hasty considering all the other features it has.
Unless it has improved a lot I would say it likely still doesnt do
what it claims
> However, you are entitled
> to your opinion, it's just that I don't agree with it. OK, I don't rely on
> it on its own. But do you rely on just ONE virus scanner? I don't. It is the
> same thing: 2 of this and 3 of that just to make sure!
> "ZoneAlarm not bad" <--- Tracer! What are you on about?
I have it installed and am giving it its tests.
BUT I cannot run my ftp (BULLET FTP) unless I switch the firewall off.
I have little control over what happens.
Ok, I will likely stick it on some customers systems as an idiot proof
reasonable product but if it interferes with what I want to run, out
it goes. It interferes with several other programs as well.
> This little beaut
> blocks ALL ports stealthing them completely - it even stealths your ident
> port (113) which many WELL known Firewalls can't seem to negotiate. I think
> it deserves a little more than a 'not bad'.
After one week of using it what should I say?
It just got a log capacity which it should have had from the begin, I
should be able to bypass alarms, it shouldnt stick its log on a path
of its choice.
It may work but its like a product meant for monkeys using computers.
Sorry for saying it, I want control of my firewall, not the firewall
having control of my system
> Are you a frequent visitor to
> GRC.com by any chance?
I visit but not sure they always know what they talk about (g)
I think Steves knowledge of hard disks is better then about
firewalls...
> I know SG said he felt it wasn't quite ready (and yes
> it did have a few lumps that needed ironing out) to recommend it, but it
> works extremely well and not using it would just be silly at this stage in
> its development.
if those lumps interfere with my computer usage, out it goes till
they are gone.
If its not interfering with my customers more simple system usage, I
see no reason NOT to install it as most wouldnt know how to set it
anyway...
Main thing to remember is I put it in, it causes problems, they come
back to me to complain.
I likely would prefer to put Zone alarm in a customer's system then to
give him a load of MS updates...
MUCH easier to remove zone alarm then to remove all that MS addon
stuff...
Best regards,
tracer
--
Using theBAT 1.41 Beta/5 with Windows 98
mail to : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I am using FireTalk: 321338
ICQ: on request
Website: www.phuketcomputers.com
Our special website hosting/mailservers are now operational
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com
To send a message to the list moderation team double click here:
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message:
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--------------------------------------------------------------
You are subscribed as : [email protected]
