Slashdot Mirror
Windows 7 Hits Build 7600 (Possible RTM)
An anonymous reader writes "One Microsoft Way is reporting that Microsoft has significantly incremented the build number of both Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008 R2: 'Reports across the Web are pointing to a build 7600 for both Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008 R2. This is significant because the bump in the build number would suggest that Microsoft has christened this build as the Release to Manufacturing (RTM) build. The RTM is expected to be given out to Microsoft partners sometime later this month and launched on October 22, 2009, the day of General Availability (GA). The build string is "7600.16384.090710-1945," which indicates that it was compiled just a few days ago: July 10, 2009, at 7:45pm. Microsoft only increments the build number when it reaches a significant goal, and the only one left is the RTM milestone. The last builds that were leaking were all 72xx builds, so such a large bump is suspicious but at the same time it is something Microsoft would do to signify that this is the final build.'"
"First shalt thou take out the Holy Pin, then shalt thou count to three, no more, no less. Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceedest on to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thy foe, who being naughty in my sight, shall snuff it." Amen.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Windows 7 is the first version of Windows that has me excited since as far back as I can remember.
For the rest of us: Not so much.
I just got sweaty palms and fell out of my chair.
Seriously? Windows 7? People are really going to play that game?
Does anybody recall any other launch of a Windows product? They always claim to have fixed all the bugs present in the previous one. They have claimed since Windows 98 that there is better security. Vista was supposed to be XP that had been fixed, remember?
After all these years and years of people eagerly anticipating the next Windows provide a lot of laughs, but it's really very sad when you think about it.
Windows 7 is the last appeal from death row. The same tired promises as ever, wrapped in fancier 3D windowing effects.
I have a question I've been trying to figure out. What exactly is going to be the effect of Windows 7? I think there are a few issues, but I haven't been able to come to a clear conclusion. There are a few issues:
* Windows 7 is like Vista, except without as many obvious bad things.
* If Microsoft writes it, people will put it on their systems. OK, Vista showed that's not entirely true, but it didn't cause a switch away from Windows, only down to XP. So, will people begin to switch away from Microsoft, or move on to Windows 7? All it has to do is be no more annoying than XP.
* Netbooks: hardware is getting cheaper and cheaper. WIll this cause people to switch to Linux (it's a $50 - $100 savings on a $200 computer)?
* Apple: OSX keeps getting better and better. Will they make enough improvement that people want to switch away from Microsoft?
I don't really know the answers to these issues, but I've been trying to figure out.
Qxe4
This does indicate it may be the RTM build, but not because it has a new build number... but because it has a build number ending in 00.
Larry Osterman's post Thinking about Windows Build numbers goes into this in more depth.
GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
I have 2 roommates working at microsoft and they both mentioned that the RTM build was finished this last week.
is the rc code just frozen in time with security updates or are they going to upgrade it to rtm levels? i'm asking because i was actually thinking about installing the rc and using it for a while on a laptop. $300 is not much less than the cost of the damned laptop. You think OEM licenses will be cheap? :)
zosxavius photography
Its already been announced that the RTM is coming out either Monday or Tuesday. Not sure why this is news.
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9135199/Reports_Windows_7_heads_to_RTM_July_13?taxonomyId=89&intsrc=kc_top&taxonomyName=operating_systems
This time it'll be different! It will! It will!
apple needs better hardware like a real desktop to get people and big business to switch. The mini is too limited but the big part of that can be fixed by having a easy to open case and a desktop hd and imac does not fit in to there reuse the old displays that a lot of do. Also the mac pro is bad as they can get a systems from dell , hp and others for about $1000-$1500 less with more ram and better base video card.
I'd like to see nicknames, like:
Bellicose Bill
or
Ballistic Ballmer
or
Screamin' Steven
rather than boorrrrring build numbers.
Just sayin'.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is insufficiently documented.
That's nice but wake me up when it leaves beta^H^H^H^H SP1
IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
Does this mean I can go out on the streets dancing naked and burning my Linux and OS X DVDs?
While I think all MS products are pretty craptacular, and I'm mostly a UNIX fan for desktop / engineering work, I did buy the $99 Win 7 Pro upgrade preorder just to keep up with a reasonably modern generation of windows. Pragmatically I realize that for at least a couple of more years there will still be a lot of software that runs on Windows and not UNIX / MAC / whatever, so it is good to be able to run Windows when needed (even if only from a VM under your desktop UNIX / MAC). ...), networked backup, transportable file metadata, good integrated search/metadata database based content organization functionality, decent file systems [think ZFS], decent backup, or decent drive content organization. Abolish the registry, turn it into a SQL database if you must, make it possible to in
Now that 64 bit hardware and 4G+ RAM is so ubiquitous, and relatively inexpensive, I find that virtually all the PCs my family has or would be likely to get would be best served by a 64 bit OS, and having 4GB or or likely more of RAM. Thus I feel that XP-32 has pretty much outlived its usefulness as a primary desktop OS for mid-range or better new desktop hardware. That's also true because it seems likely that evolving security patches, security products, as well as media application products will likely function better on Windows 7 / Vista than on XP SP3 as 2010 and beyond progresses and XP becomes more and more of a legacy OS and Vista/Win7 become more and more mainstream.
The things I like about Win 7 are that they upgraded Media Center / Player for H.264 / Divx etc. They didn't go nearly far enough in terms supporting of other codecs (no Ogg, etc.), bad media format / file portability, no intrinsic HD-DVD / Blu-Ray playback (WTF?!), still bad DRM, etc. But at least the more ubiquitous Media Center functionality with integrated H.264 is a good step forward. I'm not thrilled about Silverlight / WPF, et. al. but I concede that to the extent that they'll be perhaps popular, Vista / Win7 are reasonably convenient desktop media platforms to run them on.
They got a clue and included all the features (supposedly) of Home Premium (e.g. Media Center) into the Pro. version, which I applaud -- doing otherwise in Vista was simply deplorable. Personally I think they should have just let all the features of Ultimate be the standard for Home and Pro use, and I think their crippled feature edition product differentiation still sucks (no ubiquitous Home/Pro bitlocker and no Home EFS and no 'full' Home backup tools?! WTF?!), but at least they've taken a tiny step toward making their mid-range Pro edition useful for cases where multimedia support and less crippled networking/security/backup [relative to 'Home Premium'] is important.
So basically I think that 64 bit is the 'killer feature' for mid-range or better desktop use for either Vista or Windows 7. It is good they decided to include 64 bit versions for Home and Pro editions, they should REALLY push for 64 to be the primary installed product, with 32 basically being for some netbooks and really underpowered legacy hardware with 1-3 GB RAM. In the respect of facilitating 64 bit access, Win7 is better than Vista since they made you jump through hoops to get Vista 64 Home/Business in many cases. Maybe by the time they get to Win 8 we'll finally get decent backup / RAID / NAS support, a better filesystem with WinFS and reasonable metadata support and no crippled path length limitations on NTFS, better codec / transcoding support, and truly ubiquitous encryption access/support. By Win 8 they ought to bundle next generation "home server" cloud support into the "family pack" too and have some kind of distributed secure cross-PC "cloud" sync/incremental backup system with transparent file synchronization and off-site encrypted backup integration APIs for internet hosted services like Carbonite, Wuala, Mozy, Windows Live SkyDrive, etc. too -- it's all overdue by years.
They apparently just don't get it about providing good file security (including bitlocker, PGP, ACLs
A while back coke.. err i mean microsoft.. introduced "new coke".. err.. i mean windows vista.. which was an unfort--*cough*purposeful*cough*--unate flop.
Then, they released "coca-cola classic".. err.. i mean windows xp again...err.. i mean "windows 7".. which the public raved was so much better than before!
HURRAY! *cough*and microsoft gets away with zero innovation by simply engineering expectations*cough*
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
The Windows back up can also be used to store entire disk and system images to external storage. Very, very useful for system restores for testing, dev, etc. Works very well and is very quick. 200GB+ of backup was stored in under half an hour on my system. Restore took about 20 minutes from start to boot of restored system.
For example, the following in a batch file run via Task Scheduler creates a full image of my system on an external drive every week. Couple that with nightly xcopy of documents to a server fileshare (with the server also getting backups to external drives) and you have a pretty robust, cheap and efficient backup system for your home network.
wbadmin start backup -backupTarget:f: -include:c:,d: -quiet
Did you get first or third?
You can fool some of the people All the Time ...
"And that's our target market", said the marketing droid.
Say what you will about Microsoft, but they are geniuses when it comes to marketing. I mean they can tell everyone that 6.1 is equal to 7.0, and sell Vista to the same pissed off customers again at $400 a head.
/^([Ss]ame [Bb]at (time, |channel.)){2}$/
The difference is that MS re-wrote the definition of "production quality" to their advantage.
By MS definition:
Beta = not usable.
RC = Alpha quality (ie: usable but not stable)
Production = Beta quality (ie: semi stable, but not finished)
SP1 = RC quality (stable, un-cleaned)
SP2 = RC2+ quality (stable, semi-cleaned)
SP3 = Pre-Production quality.
This is quite astute.
I'd also like to point out another story detailing a strong statistical anomaly in the speed at which anti-microsoft and pro-linux stories get "buried" on social news sites.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Fuck microsoft
The only reason they have styled their build #'s based on 72xx and 76xx is because Cisco is a world leader in communiation and they are trying to ride their train. Tell them to get their own train !!!!!!
-yep I'm an0nymous!
apple should have thinker systems and not higher pried thin system come on the older imacs had real video card now most of them have 9400m at with laptop dual cores at prices where you can get a desktop core i7 systems with much better video cards at the same price levels.
And PEOPLE WANT MATE Displays, Not have cpu power tied to screen size, easy to get HD come on the dell and others AIO have at where it is very easy to get to the HD, and whats up with mini DP and no free mini dp to DP and mini dp to dvi cable?
The mac video cards should of had a full size DP port with a free DP to mini dp cable as well maybe even 2 DP ports with a free DP to DVI DL cable and DP to mini DP.
I pre-ordered a copy for myself and my son.
Of course my Laptop will dual-boot both Windows 7.0 Pro and Fedora 11, so that if Windows 7.0 fails me, at least I have Fedora 11 to use. I will try to use the Windows XP virtual machine option with 7.0 Pro to run legacy software.
My son has been begging me for Windows 7.0 so I got him a Windows 7.0 Home Premium, I could not afford two 7.0 Pro copies, so I bought him a Home Premium version. If he needs the 7.0 Pro version Microsoft allows an upgrade to 7.0 Pro via the Internet and I can afford that later if needed.
If the XP virtual machine does not work to well, I'll be buying two old copies of XP Pro from pricewatch.com and run them in Sun VirtualBox later. I hope I don't have to do that, but the current Windows XP licenses would be invalid after the upgrade to 7.0.
My son's system uses a wireless adapter that does not have Linux support, and he showed no interest in Linux, most of his games work in Windows XP, and if they don't work in Windows 7.0 I'll look for upgrade patches to work with 7.0 or he'll have to skip playing those games until I can get a virtual machine set up to play his games.
Both systems were Vista boxes, downgraded to Windows XP Pro, so they should run Windows 7.0.
I know I am taking a risk, but I hope to find out what problems friends and relatives will have when they upgrade to Windows 7.0 as they'll be calling me and asking for help. Upgrading from XP requires a reformat and reinstall, and most of my friends and relatives are using XP and some are using Vista.
I preordered before July 11 to qualify for that half off special on upgrade copies. I am not sure if the old XP licenses will still work if Windows 7.0 fails and I have to reinstall XP, or if I have to buy new licenses for XP to switch back to XP.
Anyway I could always buy my son a wireless card that works with Linux and install Fedora 11 with WINE and see if that runs his video games better than Windows 7.0 and save money on XP licenses and virtual machines, and teach him how to use Linux as an alternative. But it is more important that he learn how the Windows upgrade process works and any troubles with it and how to resolve them. Right now to him the Windows 7.0 is cool, but if there are issues and it won't run his video games, he will learn that sometimes newer technology is not always better and even if it looks cool, it might not always do what he wants it to do. Because eventually they will upgrade to Windows 7.0 in his school, too bad they don't support Linux.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
They are still making "Windows?"
That's cute. I guess there's always a market for retro stuff.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
I plan to purchase a copy and install it, having skipped Vista as I didn't have "Vista capable" hardware for the past couple of years. The old WinXP box just kept chugging along, and I didn't really "need" to upgrade. But with XP getting a little long in the tooth and Microsoft dropping free support/patches for XP in a year or so, it's time to "invest" again.
However, I'll be upgrading my CPU (P4 3.8 GHz) before I consider springing money on Windows 7. What I might do is buy the upgraded CPU and Windows 7 at the same time so I can get an OEM edition instead of wasting money on a retail version.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
A $400 Windows laptop is cheap only if your time has no value.
Translated from Prussian: It is the way it is, therefore, it is the way it is, therefore, ...
The main change is that Microsoft goes back to marketing a product people actually want. From what I can see, pushing Vista damaged their credibility pretty strongly, but with 7 they'll likely regain much of that trust, and in fact already have with the open beta/RC.
Let's fix that - a product people might actually want. It's well established that Vista is a product that people don't want. Whether or not Vista 7 is a product people actually want will depend on what's in the RTM version: whether it's more useful than XP, if it's not more painful to use, if it supports enough hardware and software, if it includes enough new functionality to replace the utility of the inevitable incompatibilities, if it's secure enough to get through the first six months without a major worm.
Since we don't have it yet, we don't know yet how it weighs in the balance.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
I'll bite, you troll. A Dell eight 2.26GHz, 6GB of RAM, a 512MB video card, and a 500GB hard drive is $3,157. That's $142 less than a Mac Pro with the same specs (though the Mac has a hard drive with 140GB more space). $142 less - for a Dell. Try to build an eight-core HP for less than $4,000. Good luck!
I'm using Build 7100 RC1, but I've seen other leaked versions pop up on TPB and Slashdot.
Anyone have a good idea of what has changed since the release candidate? Any big features or bugfixes I should be expecting for the final release?
I'll bite, you troll
The big complaint is that Apple has chosen to leave a huge gap in its product line between the Mac mini and Mac Pro.
Really? Well for a product that no one wants it sure is pretty damn successful, beating out all versions of Linux and OSX combined. I bet you tried a pre-release version of Vista or the very first retail version and decided it sucked. So did you beloved XP, and people were saying how terrible it was at launch too. Vista is a mature, stable, robust operating system. The only thing I'm bitter about is that Windows 7 isn't being sold like it's an upgrade. They shouldn't be charging full price for it.
But most people won't ever see the price of it anyway so I guess it's not going to be that big of a deal for many.
Doesn't matter.
Whichever release it is, it will never save System Restore properly.
My first install of Win 7 RC 1 got corrupted thanks to nVidia 186.18 driver.
I could not roll back because NO system restore points were available.
so i reinstalled Win 7, allocated 22% of my disk spaces to System Restore and created manual system restore points AFTER Bootup and BEFORE Shutdown every single damn time.
But when i reboot, i find all of those points missing.
Not just Manual points, but also those created by Install and Automatic are gone Kaput.
This happens every day. I i create 20 system restore points and reboot, ALL 20 are gone. If the Install service created one system restore point and i rebooted, its gone.
I contacted Technet, but while MVPs acknowledged my problem as unique, they could do nothing.
"Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
tl;dr
Bwhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
Great troll, there friend! You almost had me until you said "reasonably modern" and then I lost it! I tip my hat to thee!
Seriously though, WinXP is about as good as it gets when it comes to Windows, and seriously, you could have probably stopped with Win2000 if you were willing to live without the WiFi applets, cleartype, and current support from Microsoft--although given the direction of their last few releases, that last one might not really be a negative at all...
--bornagainpenguin
Have a Virgin Mobile USA smartphone? Give VMRoms.com a try!
"First shalt thou take out the Holy Pin, then shalt thou count to three, no more, no less. Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceedest on to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thy foe, who being naughty in my sight, shall snuff it." Amen.
Honestly describing to someone how to throw an hand grenade in Mojo Jojo style prayer is annoying at best.
Windows 7 7600 RTM x64
Not sure if a 32 bit version has been "leaked" yet...
Actually everyone...every-single-person...that I know that upgraded from ME to XP, was fucking overjoyed! Without exception. In fact ME was even more hated than Vista....far more.
Finally, a Mac fanboy admits there's a Mac tax!
TL;DR. You lost me at complaining about having to type out the few extra bytes in "0.0.0.0" versus just "0". You realize Windows has to read the whole 4KB (or whatever) disk cluster anyways, right? And probably "read ahead" many more clusters to fill its buffer?
And why would you use GetTickCount() to time anything? Besides being inaccurate, all it's measuring is how long it takes to return focus to your program from the context switch it makes to do a hosts lookup.
DATABASE WOW WOW
tl;dr seems suspiciously like what a microsoft shill would say to hide facts regarding windows 7, vista, and srv2k8 having problems in its networking.
I'll bite, you troll.
A Dell eight 2.26GHz, 6GB of RAM, a 512MB video card, and a 500GB hard drive is $3,157. That's $142 less than a Mac Pro with the same specs (though the Mac has a hard drive with 140GB more space). $142 less - for a Dell.
Try to build an eight-core HP for less than $4,000. Good luck!
I'll bite: HP Z600 Linux Workstation
~$2000 when you add the second CPU. Maybe another $100-$200 if you want Windows
Granted, I didn't configure all of your fancy 6GB of RAM and other silliness :)
Quad-core Mac Pro + Applecare (to match the Dell's warranty): ~$2750.
Precision T3500, 2.66Ghz quad-core, 3GB RAM, 750GB drive: ~$1750.
Studio XPS, 2.66Ghz quad-core, 3GB RAM, 640GB drive, 3yr warranty: ~$900.
For nearly everyone, the $900 Studio XPS is equivalent to the $2750 Mac Pro.
look at the base mac pro and any other core i7 system same cpu power apple price $1000+ more.
Err that is a dell. Any self respecting nerd doesn't buy shit from dell or HP. I buy all my pc gear from MSY and IT estate which are basically high volume wholesalers that sell to the public. There is no option to do this with apple. You buy retail or you don't buy at all. Now if you are talking about work stuff, yes we do use dell and HP, but as they are volume orders they are a lot cheaper than the shit you just posted above.
Your announcing on a technology site that you just pre-ordered TWO copies of an OS that's in a free public beta? See if you can cancel the order, create a (free) technet account and download then burn your disks. You can use this version until March 1, 2010 and then decide if it's worth your money.
Quack, quack.
Um, dude, I'm sure I'm being trolled here but... are you complaining about wasting 6 bytes in your hosts file? If that's your big objection to Windows 7, then they've done a bang-up job IMO.
Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
Wow. Helluva rundown. Almost over my head, too. Now I have to do some reading, to see how well I can really understand all that. Oh, don't worry, I got the "in a nutshell" idea of it. Firewall is a layered defense, and Microsoft took away the layers. Which just begs the question: do 3rd party firewalls provide the layers of defense, or do they just rely on Window's API's? And, if 3rd party firewalls provide a good layered defense, which ones do so?
I'm glad I have a good gateway machine, lol. I just didn't realize how important it might be!!
And, I understood the HOSTS thing just fine.
Thanks for the info, and I'm off to find more. :-)
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
While 0 is a valid IP address and should work in a hosts file, dude, STOP ABUSING the hosts file like a clueless idiot! Seriously, 14MB of plain text that needs to be parsed for every lookup? That's the most retarded thing I've ever seen.
At those proportions, there are WAY more efficient methods. Think about it, a hosts file can only match fully-qualified host names. If you want to block a whole domain you waste enormous amounts of space because you have to specify each and every host. Following that, you should instantly realize that security doesn't work with blacklists, i.e. if you know that domain evil.invalid is hostile, you can't afford to miss some hosts below it. Otherwise, what's the point?
And anyways, diverting traffic to 127.0.0.1 or 0.0.0.0 is changing semantics in so many ways. Suppose you start running a local HTTP server for testing purposes and all that traffic is suddenly hitting it. It's just wrong.
"Blocking" hosts by listing them in the hosts file is an evil evil evil ugly hack conceived by clueless idiots that can't manage to run a local proxy where you could block domains with simple regular expressions and only for protocols which need them blocked. Or running a local DNS cache where you could blacklist domains so you get a semantically correct (for your purpose) NXDOMAIN error.
If you weren't abusing it like that the whole 0 vs 0.0.0.0 issue would fly past you because noone ought to modify the hosts file anyway these days. That's what DNS is for.
Of course it runs NetBSD. BTC: 1NT7QvbetmANwaMzhpVL6
"Um, dude, I'm sure I'm being trolled here but... " - by fractoid (1076465) on Monday July 13, @12:04AM (#28672441) Homepage
Not trolling man (just using a "religious style reference" as the parent poster did, to keep "in theme/on topic" (sort of, lol)), & I actually HOPE I AM WRONG, because I like & use Windows myself (but, not VISTA/Server 2008 or Windows 7, & not only because of what I wrote, but also because of OpenGL game hassles & DRM stuff)...
However, so far, in regards to what I wrote above? It doesn't appear that I am... + MS never answering me in their blogs regarding this made me seriously wonder "wtf?" as well, to be blunt about it. That's all...
(& what ROOTKIT.COM found as well, made me further wonder also (read all the way to my "p.s." please)?
Man... again, hope I am wrong, but I do not think THEY are, for sure, in regards to the NDIS 6 firewalling being used, VISTA onwards)...
----
"are you complaining about wasting 6 bytes in your hosts file? - by fractoid (1076465) on Monday July 13, @12:04AM (#28672441) Homepage
Again, you have to READ - line by line, over as many lines as my HOSTS file has (or, any other "largish" one (purely relative term that, but the point's there))? Yes, I am... takes longer to read & load & thus, is slower, & just "bloated", period.
APK
P.S.=> IN any event? Enjoy the read, & the reference backing URL's too (bit 'techno', especially from rootkit.com, but worth a read too)... apk
It has been done in a better way on the MS Windows platform for a very long time by many third party vendors as well - effectively by dd plus a compression program and a way to identify blank space in the file system.
I'm not sure if I've every been able to get anything out of a backup by MS software without third party tools (lately I haven't even bothered to try the native recovery tools), and now I've got weird stuff like a backup of a volume that is ALWAYS 236GB even though the amount of data on the disk is steadily increasing. Some sort of rsync to another volume, ghost, partimage or dd is a solution that is more trustworthy.
Reason for this is they don't have to authenticate the installation online.
2000 only requires a serial and you're set.
XP/Vista/7 all require online autentication.
Now if I can only figure out how to get DX10 to install on 2000.
* But you can't run 2000 on power pc?
+ Wrong, you can there was a special version of NT created for it
* But 2000 don't support the hardware.
+ ATI has the source code
Gates is gone, Release the source code Balmer!
RELEASE THE SOURCE.
Quit making me register and call you when I want to use my computer.
Quit making me put up with Linus Torvalds oral fixations on code placement and breaking my bin drivers.
Damn Cox with his showboating.
Damn the developers changing shit.
My computer is never stable. I can't even run my Intel video card in linux without it puking or having side effects.
Damn Windows running ass slow because I think 1 gig of ram is plenty..
There is no win win situation.
That's not a troll at all...look at the mac product line. For desktop computers you get the choice of a mac mini or a mac pro. For an integrated desktop you have the imac.
You don't see a problem with there being NOTHING in between a mac mini and a mac pro?
"Which just begs the question: do 3rd party firewalls provide the layers of defense, or do they just rely on Window's API's? And, if 3rd party firewalls provide a good layered defense, which ones do so?" - by Runaway1956 (1322357) on Monday July 13, @12:04AM (#28672443) Homepage
In regard to that question? YOU in particular, due to the nature of your question, YOU will want to read what ROOTKIT.COM found & that's in my "p.s." in my posting, @ my init. posts heres' termination/ending...
(I think you will find it informative (&, they ALL use MS API's by the by, afaik - In fact, this is, iirc, what "f'd up" Zone Alarm users when they tried to load their 2000/XP model of ZA initially on VISTA))
They note OUTPOST's firewall, but, iirc? I saw that they ALL use NDIS 6 api's to some extent (correct me IF I am wrong here fellas - because I AM actually hoping someone proves me wrong on these points - because I am just a "mortal man" & make mistakes too + I actually LIKE Windows quite a lot!)
APK
P.S.=> This is 1 time I wish I was wrong, because I like Windows, but so far? It's not appearing to be that way on HOSTS files, and also WFP + NDIS networking in VISTA ownards... apk
I liked Vista just fine. The basic version came installed on my laptop. But I wanted Windows Media Center to connect to my Xbox, so I downloaded the RC of 7. And honestly, the only difference I've noticed is the ability to change the background at time intervals. I didn't think Vista was bad (way more stable than XP on my desktop), and I don't think 7 is anything impressive. What am I missing?
I know more people who "downgraded" from Vista to XP than I ever knew installed ME. I guess that's a major accomplishment for Microsoft's marketing - that they actually got as many people to try this dog as they did.
Strangely enough, I still use ME for some rare needs. There are peculiar things about its software stack that make it useful as a boot OS for odd jobs. But yeah, a terror that one.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
I see a lot of people saying that win7 is going to be a viable OS for netbooks. I just installed it this weekend on a netbook, and frankly it was a miserable experience. When finished, it was totally unusable for two primary reasons. First the netbook has a 1024x600 10" screen, once windows was done drawing all its art in the form of huge taskbars and big ribbons, plus assorted other screen junk, about 1/3 of the extremely limited screen remained. Secondly, it was just a dog, the 1G memory and low end CPU just makes it crawl along.
"While 0 is a valid IP address and should work in a hosts file, dude, STOP ABUSING the hosts file like a clueless idiot! Seriously, 14MB of plain text that needs to be parsed for every lookup? That's the most retarded thing I've ever seen" - by TCM (130219) on Monday July 13, @12:12AM (#28672489)
First of all: 0 is no longer useable in the VISTA hosts file, after the 12/09/2009 patch tuesday update... & it isn't in Windows Server 2008, or Windows 7. AND, if you read lower, even "security experts" agree HOSTS are useful... so please, do read on (& the name tossing & such is not helping your case)...
Secondly: Ever heard the term "layered security"? I use HOSTS files to supplement IPSec, Port Filtering, & the native Windows firewall (to block access to known bogus sites)... &?
----
Oliver Day of SECURITYFOCUS.COM tends to "2nd my opinions" & findings, here, per his article "RESSURECTING THE KILLFILE":
http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/491
----
(Nuff said, on THAT account... either you favor layered security, as much of it as you can use as possible, or you don't...)
----
"And anyways, diverting traffic to 127.0.0.1 or 0.0.0.0 is changing semantics in so many ways." - by TCM (130219) on Monday July 13, @12:12AM (#28672489)
First of all - I don't run a webserver here (moot point on your part, that)... &, secondly?
Not for BLOCKING ACCESS to known bad sites, it works - I get my data from various sources for that, including SpyBot S&D's hosts file populations, SRI.com, stopbadware.org, & other reputable sources for that purpose (to stay safe - "if you can't go into the kitchen, you can't get burnt" type thinking)...
----
""Blocking" hosts by listing them in the hosts file is an evil evil evil ugly hack conceived by clueless idiots that can't manage to run a local proxy where you could block domains with simple regular expressions and only for protocols which need them blocked. Or running a local DNS cache where you could blacklist domains so you get a semantically correct (for your purpose) NXDOMAIN error." - by TCM (130219) on Monday July 13, @12:12AM (#28672489)
Oliver Day of SecurityFocus.com above would disagree with you, & so do I...
(Your name tossing & profanity doesn't make YOU sound too intelligent, so I wouldn't go tossing names anymore like idiot...)
APK
P.S.=>
"At those proportions, there are WAY more efficient methods." - by TCM (130219) on Monday July 13, @12:12AM (#28672489)
AND, I use them, in a layered security manner (things in my webbrowsers even, like opera's filter.ini, Firefox's block lists, & even IE's restricted zones) alongside IPSec, Port Filtering, & Windows native firewall (plus a CISCO technology based linksys router)... layered security is the trend & the way, & smart to do imo @ least...
(Whoever modded you up might have made a mistake, but... oh well, opinions vary - facts & noted security experts agreeing with my points, do not!)... apk
I'll bite, you troll.
Have you actually looked at the PCs in those office buildings full of thousands upon thousands of cubicles. The current hardware refresh is 1GB XP (or 2GB Vista) entry level core 2 duos.
Most big IT shops supporting thousands of users wants standardized PCs that they can swap the monitor out when it dies without having to touch the pc. And if the hard drive goes they want something they can open, plug a new one in, image it, and send it back. ditto the power supply and optical drive. And if the motherboard fails they just replace the PC.
So the imac and mac mini are both out of the running.
The problem isn't that the mac pro isn't good value for what's in the box. The problem is that almost nobody needs what's in that box. And Apple doesn't sell a box with the stuff business needs the way business wants it. They want imac specs in an easily maintained box, separate from the screen.
Apple refuses to make one, and simply puts themselves out of the running in this market.
The AC is a retard.
NTFS reads blocks. If your hosts file is smaller than 1 block, it doesn't make a disk I/O difference HOW BIG each address is.
String parsing is fast. Perhaps it would be a reduction of a couple dozen CPU cycles to read a "0" rather than "127.0.0.1", but that actually might be offset if the code to look for 0 caused a page fault due to code bloat to support special cases. Under the covers Windows would still have to alloc a SOCKADDR so we're only talking about a difference in parsing complexity.
Plus, the AC poster obviously isn't familiar with Windows DNSClient service. It is not actually necessary to parse LMHOSTS every time a network connection is made by name; the file is only parsed when it changes.
So many versions of Windows one by one, I saw Windows 7 on friend's PC, I like the interface,but my PC is old and maybe have to buy a new one if to run Windows 7. http://www.lifting-anchor.com/
For myself all the programs I wanted to run under XP 64 crashed like a mofo. MS conspiracy I dunno. But the windows 7 public betas and rc run those programs perfectly it is almost as if MS wanted vista to be a total failure just to get even pirates to purchase windows 7.
I'm not necessarily defending the method, but is the hosts file really parsed each time a lookup is performed? Surely it checks the file modification time (cached in memory) of the latest change, and if it has changed only then it parses it and adds it into its own internal indexed DNS cache? /etc/hosts every time?
You can bet DNS queries aren't performed every time you need to find google.com, so why would it read
I haven't even read GP and why he's doing it, so it may be a total waste of memory, and it sure isn't an elegant, robust solution, but I don't think it'd be as bad as you say.
// MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
"For nearly everyone, the $900 Studio XPS is equivalent to the $2750 Mac Pro."
Except that it's /not/ equivalent in any way shape or form. Do the Precision or Studio XPS machines have Xeon processors in them? If they only need a $900.00 machine, they shouldn't be looking at anything like a $2750.00 Mac Pro.
Test this ANOTHER WAY: Read in a HOSTS file in a loop this way first using 127.0.0.1 & then 0 as your blocking addresses, using a hi-res multimedia timer to time it... Since the typical for File I/O Open/Read-Write/Close cycles for access to files with multiple records in them use loops, this is a completely valid way of timing how long EACH one (127.0.0.1 or 0 in each line of your HOSTS file) takes... Test, by using a Hi-Res multimedia timer registered w/ the system in your code also (another way to test this, with VERY FINE GRAINED accuracy (better than normal timers, because of higher resolution)) @ the start of your looped read & then get the difference @ the end when your EOF is encountered
AND - Do it once using a HOSTS file with 127.0.0.1, time it, & then 0... see what you see & tell us, ok?
APK
P.S.=> I.E.-> Which takes longer: Using 127.0.0.1 or 0, with the same lines & same length of the file, until you hit the EOF trailer record (end of file marker), & time it using a hi-res timer... Thanks! apk
The HOSTS file was never intended as a filtering mechanism, and MS, et al have no obligation to make it work or continue to work for that purpose. Run a proxy or firewall.
The ludicrously minimal built-in firewall was never intended to be an anti-spyware utility. If you want to run dangerous code on your system, and not have it bypass your security, then relying on any version of Windows' firewall is insane. More than half of the windows GUI runs SUID root, for chrissakes!
Just another "DOJ fascist authoritarian totalitarian bootlicker" -- Zeio
When you use a LARGER hosts file, you have to unfortunately disable the local DNS cache (bad design in & of itself by MS)...
YES, it's true, & even the folks @ mvps.org will tell you this much, since my word isn't good enough (& if you don't disable the local DNS cache, with a larger HOSTS file? You LAG, badly)...
So, that FACT, functions to answer your question now:
"I'm not necessarily defending the method, but is the hosts file really parsed each time a lookup is performed?" - by kestasjk (933987) * on Monday July 13, @01:52AM (#28672933) Homepage
See the above... thanks! Once your local DNS cache is off, & with a LARGER hosts file (custom ones like mine have 654,000 records in them, mine's composed of ALL of them over @ the wikipedia.com site for HOSTS files, mvps.org's is one such & others there are reputable as well & contain valid data (except for the one from france, it's got more than a few I had to pull)) YOU HAVE TO CRANK OFF THE LOCAL DNS CACHE or you lag, badly.
So yes, until the local diskcache kicks in & has read the ENTIRE FILE record for record into its structures? You DO perform, multiple reads, per each request for URL to IP resolutions...
THEN - You depend on the diskcache, & it depends on the filesystem, which does 4kb block reads...
SO - with a HUGE file like mine? YOU EXCEED 4kb total size of a HOSTS file, easily, & multiple reads are incurred in the File I/O Open/Read-Write/Close cycle...
(AND, there is NO guarantee you will read to the end of the file (EOF marker) trailer record either, reading IN THE ENTIRE FILE, each time you make a request for URL-to-IP resolution).
Thus, multiple reads are incurred, until the entire file is read in, in 4kb blocks (memmgt uses 4kb blocks too, by the by)...
THUS - The smaller this file is, by using a smaller blocking IP address like 0? Then, the MORE OF IT FITS into the cache & ram each time your read it... bear/keep THIS in mind! It's important...
Using 0 vs. 127.0.0.1 (as your blocking IP addy)?
You can "get more in" per read, to cache it (even in the local diskcache, which again, with a larger file? This IS what happens, & the diskcache takes over, since with larger HOSTS files, you MUST shut off the local DNS cache, or you will lag)
----
"You can bet DNS queries aren't performed every time you need to find google.com, so why would it read /etc/hosts every time?" - by kestasjk (933987) *
on Monday July 13, @01:52AM (#28672933) Homepage
Oh, I agree, & KNOW not, but... that's what a local DNS cache IS FOR... with a larger HOSTS file?
AGAIN - You do NOT have that luxury anymore!
(In fact? That IS another mistake on MS' part imo as well)...
AND, as I stated here already?
Well, per Oliver Day of SECURITYFOCUS.COM in his article called "RESURRECTING THE KILLFILE" here -> http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/491
?
Well - you can see, that even the "security gurus" out there are seeing what I stated & agree, it works for LAYERED SECURITY (which is the trend they recommend, though the lazy & non-security conscious do NOT agree with it, that's THEIR problem, not mine)... especially if things like the rest of my post mention, regarding WFP & NDIS 6 (rootkit.com findings, & those guys are GOOD, better than I am @ this stuff imo)... do read my ENTIRE post please.
There is a reason I mention both... if you get your firewalls based on WFP or NDIS 6 blown down, then @ least you cannot go into the kitchens that are bad & get burnt, via HOSTS files that block said bogus sites.
APK
P.S.=> In fact? Hey - I also challenge anyone that codes to try THIS simple test:
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=13001
I just realized that the things that will make me the happiest about Win 7 (potentially) are really totally indirect effects, but ones that will really help the overall computing world / experience.
No I'm not shilling about how great Win7 is -- LINUX has done most of this stuff well / much better for years, but the point here is that the UBIQUITY of market adoption of capable OS / HW platforms will enable better momentum for these technologies / opportunities than if they were just "niche market" demands as they currently are perceived to be.
* One: 64 bit windows will be a mainstream OS that 3rd party software / hardware vendors just CANNOT ignore anymore. I've been using 64 bit for years with Vista, but lack of good 64 bit SW/HW driver compatibility has been painful. Now that a good percentage of people who buy new PCs will be having Win7/64 by default, finally SW / HW makers will support it properly just due to their bottom line.
* Two: I realize that there's nothing special about 64 bit vs 32 bit for legacy hardware, but RAM is CHEAP now (at least DDR2 is). Moore's law tells me that 8GB, 16GB, 32GB RAM will be cheap in the near future. 32 bit OS/SW was a MAJOR obstacle to taking advantage of cheap RAM more than 4GB, so getting widespread vendor support for that means we can all have more cheap RAM and not have it be considered some "power user" or "enterprise" or "server" high end thing to have 8GB, 16GB+ RAM. Maybe they'll even start putting enough RAM slots in *consumer* motherboards and add the CPU support that you'll be able to install 32GB, 64GB+ cheaply within 3 years without a server class CPU/motherboard. More RAM is one of the best/cheapest upgrades you can get for a PC, even if it is just used mostly for disc cache, that's OK. With 1TB hard drives being cheap / common, we NEED lots of disk cache RAM just to speed up the disk metadata searching and filesystem journaling / buffering. 8GB RAM is less than 1% of the capacity of a $90 1TB disc, so really we've sorely needed more/cheaper RAM just for disk buffering for a couple of years.
* Three: This is the potentially BIG thing for usability as well as the environment. The system will boot faster, shut down faster, but most crucially, it will SLEEP better, and because it will be widespread, PC / hardware / driver / SW makers will get crucified if they DON'T have BIOS / drivers / software that don't deal well with ACPI / PC sleeping / "instant on" etc. This hopefully will enable MANY more people to actually make effective use of the power saving sleep / hibernate features of their PCs, saving a huge amount of energy and energy resources and TIME. It will also greatly increase productivity for people who don't want to wait for slow boot/shutdown times, sleep/hibernate functions that don't work right, etc. I think the OS functionality has sorta started being usably reliable since Vista SP1. Now with Win7, I think the OS vendors and BIOS / SW vendors will really focus on making instant-on PCs and fast boot/shutdown a reliable "it just works" situation. Maybe we'll even start seeing ability to "snapshot" your system state hibernate style, but "bookmark" various "sessions" of the entire PC's application state so you can quickly switch between "desktops" relating to working on one thing vs. working on another thing, etc. Combing quick boot + VM technology + hibernation etc. and you could see whole new paradigms of organizing your workflow on PCs where you can load / unload whole PC configurations and application suites in a few seconds. Replace the old "dual boot" with "oh just load up this bookmarked VM or hibernated snapshot in 5 seconds" and you're running something completely different / task-oriented. Have 10 word documents, 10 PDFs, 30 browser tabs open for a single project, e.g. doing your taxes or whatever? Just have ways to snapshot/hibernate/bookmark that whole set of context as a "desktop context" and quick-boot back to it as an hibernation context or migrate it transparently to a VM snapshot or whatever when you'r
"The HOSTS file was never intended as a filtering mechanism, and MS, et al have no obligation to make it work or continue to work for that purpose." - by geekboy642 (799087) on Monday July 13, @02:06AM (#28672989)
Pretty CHEAP "cop out" that I say, but, have you considered its merits in LAYERED SECURITY? Oliver Day of SECURITYFOCUS.COM has, here -> http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/491
----
"Run a proxy or firewall." - by geekboy642 (799087) on Monday July 13, @02:06AM (#28672989)
I do, & you had best read the rest of my post regarding the new WFP based single part firewall, AND WHAT ROOTKIT.COM FOUND, in regards to NDIS 6 based firewalls also (see my first post, you guys are SKIMMING & MISSING THE REST OF WHAT IT NOTES - because I cover what you state also, & all for "layered security" - thanks!)
HOSTS do work as a layered security filter though, regardless of what YOU state!
(AND, hey - Even "security guru" Oliver Day @ SecurityFocus.com sees its usage thus -> http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/491
AND??
So do folks like "SpyBot Search & Destroy" also (since their app populates not only the HOSTS file, but, also files like Opera's Filter.ini, FireFox's block lists, & IE Restricted Zones also, for LAYERED SECURITY (this is the trend & recommended practice by security folks by the by, myself included))
AND, I want you to PLEASE, read this, all the way thru (and my original post, you guys are blowing off really important stuff to consider):
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1300193&cid=28673103
Read it ALL THE WAY THRU... thanks! "Drink it in, & digest it", then, form your opinions...
----
"The ludicrously minimal built-in firewall was never intended to be an anti-spyware utility. If you want to run dangerous code on your system, and not have it bypass your security, then relying on any version of Windows' firewall is insane. More than half of the windows GUI runs SUID root, for chrissakes!" - by geekboy642 (799087) on Monday July 13, @02:06AM (#28672989)
I don't depend on ANY single layer, & espouse LAYERED SECURITY... in fact, I wrote a guide that has gone across the internet in 1 yr. to a total views mark of 250,000++ by now & rated 5/5 stars, made an "ESSENTIAL GUIDE" @ nearly all forums it is on, plus showing folks (once they apply ALL my points, & practice a few simple things, including HOSTS files usage) stating things, like this, verbatim for themselves & even clients who paid them to implement it for them:
----
HOW TO SECURE Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003, & even VISTA, + make it "fun-to-do", via CIS Tool Guidance (& beyond):
http://www.tcmagazine.com/forums/index.php?s=684fc342293777e89be01afad224dc63&showtopic=2662
----
TESTIMONIAL TO ITS LAYERED SECURITY EFFECTIVENESS:
----
http://www.xtremepccentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=97c1e368dad75689a8da7df5a0e97418&t=28430&page=3
"Its 2009 - still trouble free!
I was told last week by a co worker who does active directory administration, and he said I was doing overkill. I told him yes, but I just eliminated the half life in windows that you usually get. He said good point. So from 2008 till 2009. No speed decreases, its been to a lan party, moved around in a move, and it still NEVER has had the OS reinstalled besides the fact I imaged the drive over in 2008.
Great stuff!
My client
I can't completely disagree with the validity of what you're saying, but I think you're just jousting at windmills trying to solve the problem at these levels of a consumer OS like Windows.
You're NEVER going to get them to make even the SIMPLE changes like you're proposing to improve their efficiency / security / whatever, when they still have MAJOR bugs that screw up hundreds of thousands of customers, the "little things" that only the experts notice is wrong with the implementation / architecture are just not priorities to fix. To really fix the security of windows they'd have to redesign it from the ground up, and at that point the result would be a disaster since it wouldn't be compatible with any of the software people have written for the old windows versions, at which point you've lost the whole point to run windows -- not for what windows itself does (yuck), but so you can run the 3rd party stuff you need/want to run like video games, photoshop, MS Word, whatever.
So treat crucial insecurities in Windows as basically a given regardless of if they were to fix these particular issues you complain about, there will still be thousands of other crucial security problems which can lead to system compromise. So to have true defense in depth you have to ASSUME any particular PC *WILL* be compromised, however easy or however hard that is to have occur in the first place.
The question then becomes how to detect that, isolate the damage to that particular PC, rather than having it affect other PCs in your home / LAN too etc. You CANNOT rely on the firewall / filtering / Ip security of a PC which you assume MAY WELL be compromised due to other problems or past incidents.
Thus the only firewall / filtering / scanning you can really rely upon is a completely isolated device that is not at all used for any purpose OTHER than secure filtering / firewall / intrusion detection etc. Thus you need a dedicated IDS / firewall / net filter PC or embedded device in front of your PC's network access so you can both protect it from the outside world, but so you can protect the world including other PCs on your LAN / home network from the potentially infected PC.
If you have just one PC, one way to more effectively do this is to use VMs to virtualize your OS installations, and that way you could run your OS in one VM session with virtualized network connectivity, and in another VM you could run a dedicated IDS / firewall / network proxy filter or whatever that the PC VM *has* to go through to get actual network access. You can trust the VM of the firewall/IDS pretty well since it does nothing but security, and has few possible ways to get compromised, and being a dedicated "system" it does the filtering more efficiently than Windows would ever do it anyway (as you have observed). Look at PFSENSE, SNORT, SQUID, et. al. The PC VM you can trust to be more secure because there aren't really any possible ways to bypass the network security / firewall / filtering / etc. which it is forced to use because it isn't even within the configuration capabilities of the PC VM to alter these configurations, so even if the Windows VM was infected or whatever, the firewall etc. would be unaffected since that is running in a totally different VM.
If you want more security, you'd even move the filter / firewall out of the physical machine that hosts the "user OS" and into a dedicated server / unit.
In any case any filtering / firewalling / proxying that windows itself can do generally can be done a LOT more efficiently by a dedicated function setup not running Windows but something like PFSENSE, IPTABLES, SQUID, SNORT, .... instead. Look at dansguardian, clarkconnect, etc. too.
One other possibility that isn't nearly as secure, but which plays nicer with a single PC home use case would be to run something like Privoxy or Comodo Internet security in your PC's Windows OS and use the better kinds of filtering / firewalling they have in some respects. Even better would be to run a VM of PFSE
Wait, why did you discount the iMac? It's still a desktop, isn't it?
Suck a long, well thought-out and insightful post, that hardly anyone will ever read because you're an Anonymous Coward.
You can only claim something is good if it is better than something else - it's relative. What else other than Windows and the Mac does Linux have to be related to? Isn't it inevitable that someone says "Linux doesn't suffer viruses like, er, the 'other operating system?'"
This is all just my personal opinion.
On the 0 vs 127.0.0.1 issue, sorry, 0 isn't a valid IP address. Just because a hack worked before does not mean that it should continue to.
I doubt it even bothers checking the date - NTFS has built-in change notification mechanisms which do not require polling.
Very few people upgraded from 98 to ME in the first place.
Anyway, most people who complained about XP weren't your average Joes migrating from 9x/ME - it was all about power users who stuck to their Win2K (which was good).
So I've never heard of you before, but you seem to like throwing your initials round APK, or Alexander Peter Kowalski.
Your initial comments seemed idiotic, you were complaining about your 15mb+ hosts file being slow to load. Sorry, but what the fuck? You have a 15mb+ hosts file? are you really that clueless about IT?
But you try and justify it all by talking about security so I figured hey, I'll see what this guys credentials are. Well, a quick search turned this up:
http://www.ca.com/us/securityadvisor/pest/pest.aspx?id=51276
A piece of software that can arbitrarily run applications invisibly? Sorry what, did you really try and throw such a security threat onto consumer's PCs??
But wait, it appears you didn't stop there, I also found this:
http://www.thorschrock.com/2008/05/19/how-to-respond-when-people-threaten-to-sue-you-on-the-web/
So not only do you produce an app. that is a massive security risk, not only do you fail to see why it has been validly categorised as such, but you throw a hissy fit and threaten to sue? Not only that, but continue to spam the comments section of that site for over a month continuing to whine?
People make mistakes though so fair enough, I figured I'm sure there's more to this guy. I found this:
http://www.thenewtech.com/forums/chit-chat/today-4378/index32.html
Er, a program built entirely around breaking the hosts file using it for purposes it is simply not intended? Again, do you have any idea about the subject you preach? Do you realise that your very own programs pose a security risk? Do you realise how trivial it would be for Malware to hide malicious redirects in hosts files of the size you are talking meaning yet another one of your programs is a vessel for anti-security?
And there's more:
http://episteme.arstechnica.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/51009562/m/3680937305
Threatening to sue again on online forums because people didn't like the fact you were using them to advertise your dodgy Delphi programs?
Other than that, all I could find was a couple of dead web pages of yours and mention of a couple of long obsolete Delphi programs.
Your complaint is about the performance of using the hosts file for something it's never meant to be used for and the resultant performance drops of reading such a large file.
The fact that using the hosts file so incorrectly inherently severely decreases performance of DNS lookups anyway seems lost on you.
You talk of security yet you produce applications that are security threats.
You threaten to sue anyone who points out that your applications are security threats, you threaten to sue people who do not like you using technical forums to advertise your programs.
You complain here about how people obviously aren't programmers because they disagree with you yet your language of choice is object pascal via Delphi, hardly the language of choice for an expert programmer and second only to pre-.NET Visual Basic for the horifically bad bloatware it results in.
Do us all a favour, quit posting anything to the internet, spend a few years updating your knowledge to learn a worthwhile language like C++, Java or one of the .NET languages. Get a clue about security and understand why your applications are a far bigger security risk than anything you talk of and finally, stop threatening to sue anyone you disagree with.
Please, stop linking to tinyurl or other obfuscators. In two months, that link you provided will be invalid. Is it really that much harder to just copy-paste the original url?
I think they really do not match up part by part. But who cares? Seriously, who? I am so sick of this whiny-apple-too-expensive-whatever posts.
"Freiheit ist immer auch die Freiheit des Andersdenkenden" - Rosa Luxemburg, 1871 - 1919
"On the 0 vs 127.0.0.1 issue, sorry, 0 isn't a valid IP address. Just because a hack worked before does not mean that it should continue to." - by KingMotley (944240) * on Monday July 13, @03:43AM (#28673363)
HATE TO DO THIS TO YOU, but, I WILL LET YOU, PROVE YOURSELF WRONG, WITH A SIMPLE TEST... ready? Here we go:
FIRST - Get yourself on a Windows 2000, XP, or Windows Server 2003 system... since 0 no longer functions as a valid blocking IP address in VISTA (since the 12/09/2009 patch tuesday update that is), or in Windows Server 2008 & Windows 7? You MUST use the older MS OS... sorry, not MY fault (anymore than it is we have a DNS Client Cache that 'breaks down' on HOSTS files larger than 1-4mb, which is does (another MS blunder, to be BLUNT about it))...
SECOND:, Load a site with 0 as the leading IP address for blocking into your HOSTS file, just as a test... like so:
0 sitetoblock.com
Lastly?
Then ping it (effectively PINGING 0, since you equated it to that URL in your HOSTS file like so below):
0 sitetoblock.com
As a line entry in your HOSTS file: You will see 0.0.0.0 is returned by the pinging of it.
APK
P.S.=> 0 is, indeed, a LEGIT blocking address in a HOSTS file... & using it not only speeds up its loads by making a tinier file, line per line as I noted, but, also avoids the DECIMAL to HEX conversion the DNS cache client performs on 127.0.0.1 or 0.0.0.0 even (aiding efficiency even FURTHER in DNS Client caching, by making the conversion process NOT have to take place even really, since 0 in DECIMAL is 0 in HEXADECIMAL also)... apk
does windows7 has problem with usb devices?
DUDE! CAPS LOCK IS NOT CRUSE CONTROL FOR COOL. Ready? .
You DON'T have to BOLD every fucking emphasised word right?
It makes your post obviously appear like the TROLL post it is, you need to trick people into READing it by making it like an actual post
Lastly, avoiding the aforementioned things will at least HIDE the fact you're asshole... apk (Assholes Post Knowingly)
The problem facing us is that people are idiots(end users)
While we as I.T. experts know that linux and unix are both freeish
and more stable than the Solar cycle, while osx and such are more
for a specific kind of user - you might be a graphix designer or
someone of such nature using all the apple processor capabilities.
End users dont care - if it is easy to use and understand the os, why not?
Unfortunatly we end up spending the money to purchuse MS products because
idiots(end users) end up not wanting to learn a new application(for instance : open office)
even though we know it's very easy to use, even more so than MS, the dont care,
They know the ms stuff and doesn't give a crap about anything else.
Think about it - a user who calls the I.T. guys to help them find "any key" on the keybord
are not the type of people that i would like to play around on a linux system, infact,
i'm not sure i want them using a calculator, or for that matter an abbacus.
i reasonably good in linux, but i'm not that good.
The point i'm trying to make is that while we can use and support more advanced
operating systems - we cannot expect the general public to abide by those rules,
if it's easy- they will use and request it, more that that, i guess that is why Vista didn't
take off that well, and i'm guessing it will be the same with windows 7.
"Dude, just give it up alright and be happy" - by John Betonschaar (178617) on Monday July 13, @05:16AM (#28673753)
You know what John? WILL DO... after all, you're right, & I am happy enough:
Especially since my post here is no longer "modded down" to -1 anymore, & others will read it + probably "mod it back up" more, as it is back to ZERO again!
(Which only illustrates that somebody DID read it, end to end, & assimilated its points + others I put up here & elsewhere here on /. in regards to what I & others like rootkit.com found as problematic in Windows VISTA, Windows Server 2008, & Windows 7 - and modded it back up from -1)
Hey, above ALL else?
WELL - I only did this, so MS can see this & make corrections!
(Fact is, I already have approached they w/ this data as was shown here, as has Harm Sorensen, Mitch Tulloch of Windowsnetworking.com, alongside myself, after they conferred w/ myself on it...)
NOW?
Now, it's in "MS' ballcourt" & what they do with it? Up to they!
HOWEVER, imo @ least? Until THIS & the OpenGL gaming issues + DRM get cleaned-up? I prefer NOT to use VISTA/Win2k8 Server/Windows 7 (for all of the reasons in this thread & NOT JUST ONES I FOUND, but also the good folks from rootkit.com (who are EXCELLENT @ programming & checking on weaknesses like this, & they publish them publicly, instead of hiding them so MS & others are aware of it... good stuff!).
Again, so it "sinks in":
I am ONLY doing this to IMPROVE Windows because VISTA was a flop... seems to me they're trying to sell folks stuff they do NOT want, period, & it's showing (or was VISTA a sales "smash"? NOT)).
APK
P.S.=> It's enough to see my posting here is getting "modded up" finally, & that the arstech trolls (whom I know are @ the root of this, per them FINALLY "showing their hand" here -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1300193&cid=28673889 ? ) Exposed themselves as my detractors, as is their usual!
Yes - That just "made my day" (folks on many forums know these guys have "had it out for me" & the ones I note specifically there are KNOWN trolls (see what folks said about Reimer here in fact on this forums as evidence thereof -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1273561&cid=28403213 as my backing proof & character witness type material from this forums' members in fact, that JEREMY REIMER is considered a TROLL, worldwide))... apk
Thanks for the link.
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law
Cracks me up every time.
"You complain here about how people obviously aren't programmers because they disagree with you yet your language of choice is object pascal via Delphi, hardly the language of choice for an expert programmer and second only to pre-.NET Visual Basic for the horifically bad bloatware it results in." - by Anonymous Coward
on Monday July 13, @05:00AM (#28673669)
Per my subject-line above?
See VISUAL BASIC PROGRAMMER'S JOURNAL, Sept/Oct 1997 issue entitled "INSIDE THE VB5 COMPILER":
That's where Delphi, oddly considering it was a competing language trade journal for coders, absolutely KNOCKED THE SNOT out of both VB5 & MSVC++ 5 also mind you, in 7/10 tests done...
(AND, most importantly, doubling even C++ in math & strings work (which mind you? EVERY PROGRAM DOES) speed...)
So much for that...
(By the way, if you are the person who impersonated me here earlier this week, & put words in my mouth I never stated as well? I'd like you to stop... & where did I say others are not "real progrmmers" here? Please - show us that, verbatim on my part, thanks!)
Proof is always nice, but putting words into others' mouths they never stated? Is not, & it certainly doesn't win debates... facts, like the ones about Delphi above though? Indisputable... & totally legit + verifiable (I am looking at the article now, as it was what turned me from VB mostly, & even MSVC++ (by the by, I have taken over 8 languages formally in college, in FORTRAN, COBOL, C, C++, MASM, PASCAL, BASIC + VB))
So much for your b.s. ... & thanks for the laugh!
APK
P.S.=> Ever wonder WHY Microsoft hired away BOTH Mr. Anders Heijelsberg (sp?) from BORLAND?
Hey - He designed .NET by the by for them (& VB.NET has Try-Catch an excellent construct for err trapping that ObjectPascal/Delphi has had from the get-go for above & beyond "structured built in err handlers" in the compiler/language of BOTH delphi & vb.net for example)?
Oh, & BY THE WAY? Mr. H. also designed BORLAND DELPHI...
(LOL, & THEN, to "top that off"? MS hired away Mr. H's co-designer from BORLAND, my fellow "polish person", Mr. Chuck Andrewzewski (sp?))
Why is that? Mr. Gates is a WISE MAN, & recognized talent in the builders of the "VBKILLER" as it was called early on, in Delphi, in those two men... plus, Mr. H.? Only 1 of 16 "DISTINGUISHED ENGINEERS" @ BORLAND... & even the other MS guys say "his design skills are WAY ABOVE THE NORM"... nuff said! apk
gibson parody amispinrite?
8/10
See subject-line above, & I welcome anyone to disprove the points I stated, here & elsewhere in this post @ /. - in fact, I welcome it, for once (& because it's my fav. OS in Windows)? I am hoping I am wrong, but... So far, the facts & backing documentation (from e.g.-> The likes of rootkit.com I used, or Mr. Oliver Day of SECURITYFOCUS.COM also) don't show it...
Nor do the the tests I challenge anyone to try either, since nobody is willing to face up to them!
(& neither do mod downs with faceless detractors (now, all others gave up or agreed @ least in part with myself, as the poster I replied to here already on) that won't debate points I made either))
Example? Well, the first line of what this fellow I replied to said no less, quoted verbatim:
----
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1300193&cid=28673255
"I can't completely disagree with the validity of what you're saying"
----
SO - Not even a "nice try" with the mod downs boys!
Above all else, please - what you fail to realize, is that THAT actually attracts folks to my posts, there is no "bad press"... as the saying goes!
Fact is?
I read mod downs myself to see IF they're justified (many times here? They're not, & not only mine).
Yes - mod downs sometimes are what I call "the last resort of the 'not men' online", when they're technically inept, & left with nothing after I trash their points attacking me & with facts or tests I challenge them to!
(Mod downs are all they have, no facts or rebuttals with facts that disprove my points... simply because that's all they have in mod downs as left as a weapon for they, lol, & sooner or later? Yes, they 'burn out' all of their hard-earned mod points & are left with nothing)
LMAO - Hey, let them TAKE AWAY THEIR ONLY WEAPON, FROM themselves, I say... & failure to disprove points I made, or evasions of questions I asked on their part? Which many of my points or questions are backed by folks like Oliver Day of SECURITYFOCUS.COM & others of decent repute noted as experts no less?
LOL... ("nuff said!" as the saying goes...)
APK
P.S.=> Enjoy all reading, & judge for yourselves, from the content posted by myself vs. that of others... instead of "faceless not men's" mod downs... lol! apk
Or "Linux violates over 200 of our patents"?
Because under Vista, hardware mixing and effects are turned off because the CPU cannot guarantee that the hardware isn't protecting data going through it.
Wait so let me get this straight, you've actually convinced yourself that you're being stalked across the internet by one or two specific people (who lets face it, probably wouldn't even know you've posted on Slashdot and probably have better things to do than scour the internet for your movements anyway) and that it's not simply that you come across as a complete idiot who has a sky high ego because he's been reviewed in Shareware mags but that advocates using the hosts file as a half a million long entry blacklist and that posts with random insertions of bold, capital letters, random @ and = signs everywhere? Either you're severely paranoid, or your mind has created it's own little world where you are actually awesome and only one or two other evil people would ever think otherwise. I'd guess it's a bit of both.
But I digress, back to the point in hand. It seems the only references you can conjur up to show that you actually know what you're on about are a bunch of articles and reviews in tat magazines? You really think articles in Shareware magazines which exist for no other reason than to milk cash from the jokes of the PC world (i.e. people who have built their own PC and so think they're IT geniuses) somehow increases your credibility?
The more you post, the more obvious it becomes that you're an amateur, I'll give you credit - you're not just any amateur, you seem to be a king amongst amateurs, but you're an amateur all the same. The problem is you represent everything that's wrong with the worst of IT professionals. I mean, again, you think a half a million+ entry hosts file is a good idea, you think it's meant to be used as a blacklist.
Then you polish off by resorting to god bothering, really, what was the relevance of that? Did you just feel some spontaneous jesus reference would somehow add credibility to your TOP SHAREWARE MAG 2008 and WINDOWS PC MEGA COLLECTION 1997 reviews or whatever the fuck you just tried to throw out or something?
It's like you actually have all the links saved to your articles from random non-factor PC magazines, is your ego really that big? It shouldn't be.
1.) HOSTS files being unable to use "0" for a blocking IP address ... ]
[
for instance? Mine currently contains nearly 654,000 entries of known bad adbanners, bad websites, &/or bad nameservers (used for controlling botnets, misdirecting net requests, etc. et al).
WTF ?
Am I the only one finding this completely ludicrous ? Get a hardware firewall already, or NoScript or something.
Even back before DNS I'm not sure there were host files that large floating around.
Is this how it's done in Windows ?
May contain traces of nut.
Made from the freshest electrons.
Best analysis of why Apple fails in the corporate arena I've heard yet. Bravo.
So, as I said to John Betonschaar above? I am happy my post went up from -1 troll to 0 already!
(& you modded it down again I see, lol & that's ok - I have screenshots & archived single files via my browser to show otherwise which show it as modded up too (always 10 steps ahead of you & yours here... & others reading will eventually most likely, mod it up again, & you and yours will burn up your modpoints, taking away your only "not man weapon", from yourself by doing THAT, to yourself).
Sooner or later, those mod points run out you know - then, what will you have once others read my points & mod my initial posts & others up once more? LOL... too easy, & it's happened this week already to you & yours (of course, you know that now, don't you? LOL, shall I post the URL where that happened for us all to reference, Mr. Troll you online internet psycho stalker?)
----
"you come across as a complete idiot who has a sky high ego because he's been reviewed in Shareware mags" - by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13, @07:34AM (#28674379)
Have you done anything like the list I posted in this art & science in respected written trade magazines, books, newspapers & more as I have? Do you even possess a degree in this art & science?? I'd say no, on both accounts, judging by your off topic trolling now... lmao because between your off topic trolling, & lack of visible provable accomplishment on your part in this science??? Please... all you have is trolling, off topic b.s., & effete mod downs.
Give us a break, lol, or I'll die laughing @ you... especially per what's in my p.s. below (your blunders)...
(Thanks for the laffs, seriously - TROLLS: Too easy to put in their place, & too transparent)
APK
P.S.=> STILL - I'd like to see who it is I am speaking to, on YOUR part... & it's MY turn to ask questions, & I'd like answers!
(ESPECIALLY since you shot your mouth off about Delphi & blew that bigtime, lol, & also about my app being "badware", listed with ZERO THREAT LEVELS mind you, but so have famous guys like the highly esteemed Dr. Mark Russinovich & Nir Sofer have had the same happen to they also)'
(Please - DO ask either one of them about that (or go to their website & blogs, to verify that much))...
By this point, to the "likes of you" troll?
Hey - I said all I had to, & got "effete not man mod downs" of my points here, but strangely no takers vs. my points or tests I suggest others run either!
(and proof of my posting here being modded up again in both screenshots & archive browser mht files also, after mod downs you doubtless gave via sockpuppets &/or other machines etc. et al (million ways to beat restrictions here, I do so, myself, being the "24 hr 10 post limit" AC's like myself here have easily, so you probably know other tricks to do so, as a child can beat most 'forums security' (a misnomer, lol) easily))... apk
Ah another classic post by Alexander Peter Kowalski, software developer/hyperbolic ranter. Don't take offense. That's the only way he knows to communicate.
"Get a hardware firewall already, or NoScript or something" - by Fred_A (10934) on Monday July 13, @07:46AM (#28674431)Homepage
Per my subject-line, Fred? As to your "something"?? What would you think about results like this, on Windows???
----
HOW TO SECURE Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003, & even VISTA, + make it "fun-to-do", via CIS Tool Guidance (& beyond):
http://www.tcmagazine.com/forums/index.php?s=684fc342293777e89be01afad224dc63&showtopic=2662
----
A TESTIMONIAL TO ITS LAYERED SECURITY EFFECTIVENESS FOR A USER OF ITS POINTS & PRINCIPALS FOR HE AND HIS CUSTOMERS:
----
http://www.xtremepccentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=97c1e368dad75689a8da7df5a0e97418&t=28430&page=3
"Its 2009 - still trouble free!
I was told last week by a co worker who does active directory administration, and he said I was doing overkill. I told him yes, but I just eliminated the half life in windows that you usually get. He said good point. So from 2008 till 2009. No speed decreases, its been to a lan party, moved around in a move, and it still NEVER has had the OS reinstalled besides the fact I imaged the drive over in 2008.
Great stuff!
My client STILL Hasn't called me back in regards to that one machine to get it locked down for the kid. I am glad it worked and I am sure her wallet is appreciated too now that it works. Speaking of which, I need to call her to see if I can get some leads.
APK - I will say it again, the guide is FANTASTIC! Its made my PC experience much easier. Sandboxing was great. Getting my host file updated, setting services to system service, rather than system local. (except AVG updater, needed system local)" - THRONKA, a user @ xtremepccentral.com who applied my guide above's points...
----
(AND, that guy above in THRONKA's NOT THE ONLY ONE WHO SEES THAT EITHER - the guide's become a 5/5 star rated one, or "most viewed" in forums, or made an "ESSENTIAL GUIDE", or sticky/pinned thread @ across 15/20 forums it has been on in 1 yrs' time, to the tune of 250,000++ views strong... but, more/MOST importantly is, it works, & is proof that Microsoft Windows CAN be secured... now, if only MS would ship Windows thus, eh?).
My guide's ALL about layered security, & as you can see? IT WORKS... unlike others' less comprehensive methods @ times... including yours, but... oddly?
My guide has your points & FAR MORE (for layered security, & IT WORKS) & HOSTS files (and why, see below, other notables in this field are noting it in fact as good) + a lot more too (& CIS Tool? What makes it easier for folks?? May appeal to you also, if you use Linux, Solaris, BSD's etc. et al also (it's multiplatform, based on industry best practices for each & helps large - see the results again for windows folks though, above, for your reference Fred & enjoy...)).
APK
P.S.=> As to "how it works in Windows", well it can use HOSTS files as an added layer of protection & even Mr. Oliver Day of SECURITYFOCUS.COM finds them useful & is thinking it may be time to "RESURRECT THE KILLFILE", from the 'olden days' (I was there too, sounds like YOU may have been too, on a *NIX judging from your reply no less), here -> http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/491
Take a read, & "Drink that in, & digest it", Fred (some 'food for thought'), & thanks for your time... apk
"Ah another classic post by Alexander Peter Kowalski, software developer/hyperbolic ranter. Don't take offense. That's the only way he knows to communicate." - by ikkonoishi (674762) on Monday July 13, @08:26AM (#28674725)
More "off-topic trollery" but no challenging my facts &/or tests + examples I posted to others above? Figures - this, along with effete sock puppet mod downs (which my post was modded up & now down again, due to the flock of trolls here appearing, off topic as usual with their ad-hominem attacks per the above quote?)
Not even a "NICE TRY" boys... your "online 'not men' tactics" fail in the light of facts... facts like THIS one (as I use facts, not off topic adhominem attacks as you are now, by way of comparison to the list below I have done, & clearly? YOU HAVE NOT lol):
"My Name is Ozymandias: King of Kings - Look upon my works, ye mighty, & DESPAIR..."
----
Windows NT Magazine (now Windows IT Pro) April 1997 "BACK OFFICE PERFORMANCE" issue, page 61
(&, for work done for EEC Systems/SuperSpeed.com on PAID CONTRACT (writing portions of their SuperCache program increasing its performance by up to 40% via my work) albeit, for their SuperDisk & HOW TO APPLY IT, took them to a finalist position @ MS Tech Ed, two years in a row).
WINDOWS MAGAZINE, 1997, "Top Freeware & Shareware of the Year" issue page 210, #1/first entry in fact (my work is there)
PC-WELT FEB 1998 - page 84, again, my work is featured there
WINDOWS MAGAZINE, WINTER 1998 - page 92, insert section, MUST HAVE WARES, my work is again, there
PC-WELT FEB 1999 - page 83, again, my work is featured there
CHIP Magazine 7/99 - page 100, my work is there
GERMAN PC BOOK, Data Becker publisher "PC Aufrusten und Repairen" 2000, where my work is contained in it
HOT SHAREWARE Numero 46 issue, pg. 54 (PC ware mag from Spain), 2001 my work is there, first one featured, yet again!
Also, a British PC Mag in 2002 for many utilities I wrote, saw it @ BORDERS BOOKS but didn't buy it... by that point, I had moved onto other areas in this field besides coding only...
Lastly, being paid for an article that made me money over @ PCPitstop in 2008 for writing up a guide that has people showing NO VIRUSES/SPYWARES & other screwups, via following its point, such as THRONKA sees here -> http://www.xtremepccentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=ee926d913b81bf6d63c3c7372fd2a24c&t=28430&page=3
?
----
What do I have to say about that much above? I can't say it any better, than this was stated already (from the greatest book of all time, the "tech manual for life" imo):
"But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I labored more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me." - Corinthians Chapter 10, Verse 10
You guys, you trolls... you've got the devil on your backs with your off topic trollery & you burn time trying to attack me? Go to school, learn something about this art & science instead, & be of service to others... best advice I can give you, is "SATAN GET THEE BEHIND ME" & do something with your lives!
(Thanks for the laughs though boys, you are always fun to "get the better of" with ease... as per usual!)
APK
P.S.=> By this point, you guys evading my tests, points & facts + examples (as well as others having modded my post up but only to have you "mod it down again" in effete retaliation, has me laughing hugely - trolls: You're ALL THE SAME - too easy to get the better of, to easy to watch you have to go off topic & try adhominem attacks, too easy to watch you run from questions also like the one above... sooner or later, you run out of mod points, & wonder why you wasted them (then, my posts get modded up here again, & that's that - you only do that, to yourselves))... apk
Microsoft haven't really taken away the layers, they've just changed the underlying code structure of those layers. The firewall platform is still performing all the checks it always has, it's just integrated together now. This really doesn't mean it's less secure. Either a packet gets through each stage or it does not. If a specific stage has a vulnerability in it's still got the vulnerability at that stage if that stage is in it's own binary or not.
If we're talking about an internal threat then again disabling one or three files is going to make no difference in Windows, it's just as trivial for a malware writer.
The hosts stuff is a load of crap too, the top parent doesn't seem to understand what the hosts file is for, it's certainly not designed to be used as a 650,000 entry blacklist, it's merely meant to contain a couple of hosts and even then only as a fix for broken DNS. Filtering of base hosts should not be done in the hosts file, that's a really bad hack for someone who simply does not understand how to build their own security layer to filter inbound/outbound connections but a hack with negative repercussions - the hosts file has to be accessed and 650,000 names have to be checked every time you access a host, that's going to slow down your DNS lookups massively.
Real layered security comes quite rightly from separate devices, not separate pieces of software on a system. You might have a hardware router at the front, a hardware firewall behind it and so on. For most home users a simple router with a built in firewall is fine, but you'll probably want them separate in a commercial environment.
The real security threats don't tend to come from direct outside connection attempts nowadays much anyway simply because of the prevailance of NAT and stateful firewalls. The most prominent attack vectors now are the browser, e-mail attachments and that sort of thing, but even these are fairly trivial to defend against. Your browser should be fairly secure if you disable Javascript on untrusted sites and no one should be opening unsolicited e-mail attachments unless they're asking to be infected. The applications you use to connect out are a far bigger worry than any attempting to connect in if you're behind a NAT and/or firewall setup.
Linux is philanthropic and intrinsically good in its conception.
Windows is not.
That ought to be enough reason for people to choose Linux. Your actions is, and should be, guided by your ethics; but people rather want to put on their blindfold and play Crysis because they're used to technology being a field devoid of ethics.
And don't play the "Well, when you want some REAL work done..."-card or the "Food on the table"-card, if the need for personal integrity does not trumph those, then this world is going to hell in a handbasket.
And yes IAA philosopher.
If you quote this signature there'll be 72 copies of Windows ME waiting for you in Heaven.
>>> First of all: 0 is no longer useable in the VISTA hosts file, after the 12/09/2009 patch tuesday update...
Someone has got himself a time machine...
Will Window 7 be able to show file extensions out of the box? Or will it keep on tricking its users to install spyware?
I keep seeing BSODs with 7 beta. Some days it works ok and some days it's crashing like mad.
Someone show me where the troll is. I can show you on google maps where the chick lived if it will help. Or I can sell someone the computer for $500 (it comes with a 22" DCD-equipped monitor with component, composite, and S-Video inputs.)
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
"Microsoft haven't really taken away the layers, they've just changed the underlying code structure of those layers. The firewall platform is still performing all the checks it always has, it's just integrated together now." - by Xest (935314) on Monday July 13, @08:42AM (#28674823)
QUESTION:
Does the NEW "WFP" model use 3 diff. drivers that operate @ 3 diff. levels of the IP stack, as the older models of Windows did (2000/XP/Server 2003) via ipsec.sys, ipfltdrv.sys, & ipnat.sys (working in combination with afd.sys & tcpip.sys etc. et al)?
(If not, then it is NOT the same...)
SO, please, don't avoid my question above, & simply prove your words are truth, because I'd like to be proven wrong, but I demand proof of it too, so I feel better about Windows 7 actually... so do so, with a little documentation to that end preferably from MS themselves, to answer MY QUESTION now, & thanks for your time...
(Why do I get the impression that he will NOT show up with said proof? Maybe because all my "naysayers" above & trolls fail to provide any either & all they do is troll & adhominem attack me here + mod my post down but do so without any facts backing them?? NAW, couldn't be (sarcasm))
These trolls, they "talk a good game" but proofs? I never see them from them... documented proofs, from respectable sources by the by, ARE REQUIRED on your part, like the ones I provided from MS themselves no less + other reputable sources.
-----
"The hosts stuff is a load of crap too, the top parent doesn't seem to understand what the hosts file is for, it's certainly not designed to be used as a 650,000 entry blacklist, it's merely meant to contain a couple of hosts and even then only as a fix for broken DNS" - by Xest (935314) on Monday July 13, @08:42AM (#28674823)
It would appear that even a Mr. Oliver Day of SECURITYFOCUS.COM disagrees with you, per his "RESURRECTING THE KILLFILE" article here -> http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/491
(Got "counter evidence" from an equally reputable source as to HOSTS files effectiveness and that they do NOT work for better layered security above software firewalls, ipsec policies, port filtering, & hardware NAT router TRUE stateful packet inspecting routers all in combination (part of what I use only mind you, my guide covers far more))
----
"Real layered security comes quite rightly from separate devices, not separate pieces of software on a system. You might have a hardware router at the front, a hardware firewall behind it and so on. For most home users a simple router with a built in firewall is fine, but you'll probably want them separate in a commercial environment." - by Xest (935314) on Monday July 13, @08:42AM (#28674823)
Well, so YOU say (do you have any degrees or certifications in security to back you up even as an alleged authority? Mr. Day does above I wager & he writes for a respected site, I have degrees in this science + 15++ yrs. of actual hands on ranging from programming/architecting thru network engineering on the job + 8 languages under my belt I have used on/off during that time coding too)... this result & person, THRONKA, seems to disagree with you though, & he uses my techniques for "layered security" which DO include hardware routers & multiple software defenses (so "don't speak too soon for the wheel's still in spin, & there's no tellin' who that it's namin" per Bob Dylan):
HOW TO SECURE Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 & VISTA even, + make it "fun-to-do", via CIS Tool Guidance (& beyond):
http://www.tcmagazine.com/forums/index.php?s=e4473be2a007d388932bb27882f6f31c&showtopic=2662 [tcmagazine.com]
A TESTIMONIAL OF ITS EFFECTIVENESS: (se
Seriously, 14MB of plain text that needs to be parsed for every lookup? That's the most retarded thing I've ever seen.
While I agree with you, Vista has two technologies which speed up this sort of thing. Actually, three. Two are shared with XP, one of which is shared with pretty much everyone in existence. Vista has disk caching, which will probably keep that 14MB in RAM at all times. If it doesn't, and you have some ReadyBoost-enabled flash hooked up, then the file will probably end up copied to flash because it will be very frequently read. Three, XP and Vista both reorg files to be contiguously located on the disk to speed up boot time.
Obviously, tampering with DNS results is a better solution than tampering the hosts file. It's not available to dumbasses though... but it seems like it should be, and it wouldn't be that hard to just give people a package that would provide it. I wonder if you can run dnsmasq on Windows :)
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Facepalms don't cut it for this level of idiocy. I am not going to deconstruct this ridiculous rant piece by piece, but a few points:
Another poster already shone a light on your background, "apk". Makes for an entertaining read. Someone like you is already a standing meme in German IT news forum Heise.de. Maybe the two of you could start a joint venture?
Rudolf Hess edited Mein Kampf. He was the very first grammar nazi.
"You DON'T have to BOLD every fucking emphasised word right?" - by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13, @06:17AM (#28674017)
Gee, look @ THAT, lol... 'THE RAGE OF A TROLL' who is frustrated... lmao! Beware fellow /.'ers, "FEAR THE RAGE OF THE FRUSTRATED TROLL!!!" (lol, not, along with their effete sock puppet mod downs, lack of facts, evading questions & tests + facts)...
(Man... utterly hilarious!)
OBVIOUS FACT - You're off topic, & doing "Ad hominem attacks" instead of disproving my points - THANK YOU (for being the TROLL YOU ARE, lol - you have revealed your TRUE SELF unto me, & others reading... thank you!).
(TOO Easy... as usual!)
This is only a forums, I will write as I like, as it is not my "last will & testament" nor legal documentation (nor even a paper for a grade)... gives us a break, & please - since you see fit to tell others how to write? Prove you have a PHD in English (I might actually lend your frothing @ the mouth raging profane replies some credence then (NOT, I only respect facts ON TOPIC)).
APK
P.S.=>
"Lastly, avoiding the aforementioned things will at least HIDE the fact you're asshole... apk (Assholes Post Knowingly)" - by Anonymous Coward
on Monday July 13, @06:17AM (#28674017)
"Classy" (NOT, lol) & "effective for convincing others via facts" (Once again, NOT!!!)... lol! Yes, profanity, being off topic, effete sock puppet mod downs, & your other "not men online" tactics aren't serving you too tell, lol, are they? Nope... apk
"Anyone who seriously uses a hosts file as a filter should be shot on sight" - by silanea (1241518) on Monday July 13, @09:48AM (#28675467)
Really? Are you threatening to shoot me or Mr. Oliver Day of SECURITYFOCUS.COM -> http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/491
?
He uses one. Just like I do... it works, read his article! Spybot S&D, a respected antispyware program, also uses them & helps make them stronger too... I suppose you know more than me, but Mr. Oliver Day & Spybot's people?
I must be standing in the PRESENCE OF A GOD (a troll god)...
----
"Anyone who relies on the Windows firewall alone for security should be publicly whipped, anyone who does so in a corporate environment should, again, be shot." - by silanea (1241518) on Monday July 13, @09:48AM (#28675467)
I don't, & in fact?
I layer on several layers of software protection, in the interests of "layered security" (the recommended trend by security pros in computers) &, that seems to be doing well for others, not just myself:
HOW TO SECURE Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 & VISTA even, + make it "fun-to-do", via CIS Tool Guidance (& beyond):
http://www.tcmagazine.com/forums/index.php?s=e4473be2a007d388932bb27882f6f31c&showtopic=2662 [tcmagazine.com]
TESTIMONIALS OF ITS EFFECTIVENESS:
----
http://www.xtremepccentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=97c1e368dad75689a8da7df5a0e97418&t=28430&page=3 [xtremepccentral.com]
"Its 2009 - still trouble free!
I was told last week by a co worker who does active directory administration, and he said I was doing overkill. I told him yes, but I just eliminated the half life in windows that you usually get. He said good point. So from 2008 till 2009. No speed decreases, its been to a lan party, moved around in a move, and it still NEVER has had the OS reinstalled besides the fact I imaged the drive over in 2008.
Great stuff!
My client STILL Hasn't called me back in regards to that one machine to get it locked down for the kid. I am glad it worked and I am sure her wallet is appreciated too now that it works. Speaking of which, I need to call her to see if I can get some leads.
APK - I will say it again, the guide is FANTASTIC! Its made my PC experience much easier. Sandboxing was great. Getting my host file updated, setting services to system service, rather than system local. (except AVG updater, needed system local)" - THRONKA user @ xtremepccentral.com
----
(Myself, many others & even their clients no less, per this guide above I authored, & testimonial to its effectiveness (it has done well too for others, not just me & mine & was often made an essential guide @ 15/20 forums its on, 5/5 star rated, most viewed (to the tune of 250,000++ in 1 yrs. time across those forums no less & it even got me PAID $100 @ pcpitstop for writing it, which is why I posted to as a service to others, for free no less, to be of service to others on my part))
Have YOU done the same, Mr. Wannabe expert?
APK
P.S.=>
"Anyone who uses FORTRAN or "pascal" examples in relation to on-client security on a modern Windows OS should be hung up by their genitals. For the love of Christ, please do the world a favour and take a C/C++ class!" - by silanea (1241518) on Monday July 13, @09:48AM (#28675467)
Uhm, I like Borland C++ & have used it on professional assigments, as well as MSVC++ too (since version 2.0)... "Don't speak too soon, for the wheel's still in spin (& there's no tellin' who that it's namin' (cuz the loser now will be later the WIN)" - Bob Dylan, per the watchmen lately...
apk
"While I agree with you, Vista has two technologies which speed up this sort of thing. Actually, three. Two are shared with XP, one of which is shared with pretty much everyone in existence. Vista has disk caching, which will probably keep that 14MB in RAM at all times." - by drinkypoo (153816) on Monday July 13, @09:44AM (#28675419) Homepage
Which I REPEATEDLY mentioned here, & how this even works better for THAT, by using a smaller blocking IP addy of 0, vs. 0.0.0.0 & certainly vs. 127.0.0.1 (4kb reads can 'pack more', per each read/pass/sweep of the filesystem & memmgt kernelmode subsystems, into said diskcache)... see here -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1300193&cid=28673103 for a detailed explanation thereof... thanks for your time.
----
"Obviously, tampering with DNS results is a better solution than tampering the hosts file. It's not available to dumbasses though... but it seems like it should be, and it wouldn't be that hard to just give people a package that would provide it. I wonder if you can run dnsmasq on Windows " - by drinkypoo (153816) on Monday July 13, @09:44AM (#28675419) Homepage
I hope you're not calling me any names, had quite enough of THAT here from these trolls who use profanity, evade my questions, screw up on points THEY made no less, & frothing @ the mouth replies & such (but never documented facts, like Mr. Oliver Day of SECURITYFOCUS.COM also using HOSTS files -> http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/491
Now, I know you boys THINK you're "All That", but compared to he? I KNOW HE IS "ALL THAT"... & until one of you can show you've done what I did while you were still in diapers in this field possibly? Well... check it:
----
"My Name is Ozymandias: King of Kings - Look upon my works, ye mighty, & DESPAIR..."
Windows NT Magazine (now Windows IT Pro) April 1997 "BACK OFFICE PERFORMANCE" issue, page 61
(&, for work done for EEC Systems/SuperSpeed.com on PAID CONTRACT (writing portions of their SuperCache program increasing its performance by up to 40% via my work) albeit, for their SuperDisk & HOW TO APPLY IT, took them to a finalist position @ MS Tech Ed, two years in a row).
WINDOWS MAGAZINE, 1997, "Top Freeware & Shareware of the Year" issue page 210, #1/first entry in fact (my work is there)
PC-WELT FEB 1998 - page 84, again, my work is featured there
WINDOWS MAGAZINE, WINTER 1998 - page 92, insert section, MUST HAVE WARES, my work is again, there
PC-WELT FEB 1999 - page 83, again, my work is featured there
CHIP Magazine 7/99 - page 100, my work is there
GERMAN PC BOOK, Data Becker publisher "PC Aufrusten und Repairen" 2000, where my work is contained in it
HOT SHAREWARE Numero 46 issue, pg. 54 (PC ware mag from Spain), 2001 my work is there, first one featured, yet again!
Also, a British PC Mag in 2002 for many utilities I wrote, saw it @ BORDERS BOOKS but didn't buy it... by that point, I had moved onto other areas in this field besides coding only...
Lastly, being paid for an article that made me money over @ PCPitstop in 2008 for writing up a guide that has people showing NO VIRUSES/SPYWARES & other screwups, via following its point, such as THRONKA sees here -> http://www.xtremepccentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=ee926d913b81bf6d63c3c7372fd2a24c&t=28430&page=3
What do I have to say about that much above? I can't say it any better, than this was stated already (from the greatest book of all time, the "tech manual for life" imo):
"But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his gr
Except that it's /not/ equivalent in any way shape or form.
Sure it is. Find some features relevant to more than a tiny minority of users that are in the Mac Pro and Precision only. If all the end user is after is a fast CPU, lots of RAM (actually, more RAM than you can put into the Quad-core Mac Pro), a good video card and multiple hard disks, then the Studio XPS is fine.
Do the Precision or Studio XPS machines have Xeon processors in them?
No, but the only difference of concern between the Core 920 and the Xeon is support for ECC RAM. Performance is the same. There's nothing magical about the "Xeon" label and hasn't been for many years. This is particularly true for single-CPU configurations.
If they only need a $900.00 machine, they shouldn't be looking at anything like a $2750.00 Mac Pro.
Thanks to the gaping hole in Apple's lineup, if you want something more than a Mini or iMac, you don't have any choice.
Any company that employs a public relations company has had the opportunity to pay for astroturfing for years. In fact, I sort of wish we could recognize and reward the companies that don't do it. In Microsoft's case, there are documents from the Iowa case which basically lays out the tactics, like astroturfing, they use to influence the public perception of their technical merits.
Now, over at ZDNet, all the Windows 7 articles are accompanied by legions of talk backs wherein the writer relates how flawlessly the beta and RC of Win7 have operated. Then, the weekend that the Wall Street Journal reports Jobs' liver transplant, Dan "Fake Steve Jobs" Lyons makes a blog post wherein he describes his frustration in trying to write an article in Word on Win7 beta while it kept crashing. He had to go to his Plan B, write it on his Mac, and he excoriated Microsoft for the quality of its software. His commenters took issue with him critiquing a company for beta software, which is a fair point. But, in one place, dozens of testimonials that they are testing it and there's never a cough in the carload and it's ready to ship now, and at another place, for an arbitrary user, it fails when he needs it to get his job done. It's possible that that's just the way it broke. I think it's more probable that some of the "flawless" posts are pr product.
Mine is only 216k and comes from here.
At those proportions, there are WAY more efficient methods...
I use a custom
I agree that it's not perfect, but it's not like I run around engaging in any risky behavior just because I have a custom
And anyways, diverting traffic to 127.0.0.1 or 0.0.0.0 is changing semantics in so many ways. Suppose you start running a local HTTP server for testing purposes and all that traffic is suddenly hitting it. It's just wrong.
Well, first of all, I don't care about being theoretically "wrong" if the actual, real-life result is "just fine." I have noticed NO ill effects from running a custom
"Blocking" hosts by listing them in the hosts file is an evil evil evil ugly hack conceived by clueless idiots that can't manage to run a local proxy where you could block domains with simple regular expressions and only for protocols which need them blocked. Or running a local DNS cache where you could blacklist domains so you get a semantically correct (for your purpose) NXDOMAIN error.
Yeah, but it works. And it's easier than installing and maintaining yet more software. (I've tried a couple proxies in the past and both were non-trivial to get working.) And regarding this: "Or running a local DNS cache where you could blacklist domains"--didn't you just say "you should instantly realize that security doesn't work with blacklists"?
All I know is that whenever I go to another computer and get swamped by ads, I'm reminded of how great my little system is.
One more thing: if all you want to do is block an ad or a software update or a validity check, WHO GIVES A FUCK if you get a "semantically correct NXDOMAIN error"?!?!?!? I don't lie awake at night wo
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
Your response is quite the opposite of getting the best of a troll as it is quite obviously emotional. Me, I just googled a random section of your post, and found it posted somewhere else then I tried to figure out why you were ranting incoherently. I found a history of the same types of posts and commented on how this was your default method of expression. Whether or not you have had articles run in magazines is unimportant.
I have no need or desire to address your supposed "facts" as doing so is not the purpose of this forum. This is a place for general discussion. You, of course, had the right to post your view, but you have to put up with whatever the internet sends your way in regards to comments. I don't have mod points as I don't post nearly enough nor metamoderate so whatever issues you may have regarding to moderators are also none of my concern.
Windows 7 is coming. You seem to have issues with the way it handles certain issues with its network security. The developers don't seem to share your concern. Some people have issues with the way you present your arguments, but yet you don't change your presentation. Go read up on how to write clearly and effectively and you will find that the "trolls" will be more likely to address your "facts" instead of just dismissing you out of hand as a raving loony.
The hosts stuff is a load of crap too, the top parent doesn't seem to understand what the hosts file is for, it's certainly not designed to be used as a 650,000 entry blacklist, it's merely meant to contain a couple of hosts and even then only as a fix for broken DNS. Filtering of base hosts should not be done in the hosts file, that's a really bad hack for someone who simply does not understand how to build their own security layer to filter inbound/outbound connections but a hack with negative repercussions - the hosts file has to be accessed and 650,000 names have to be checked every time you access a host, that's going to slow down your DNS lookups massively.
Prior to the invention of DNS, hosts files were the only way to do name -> address lookups on a IP network. So hosts files quickly became rather large.
(We're just lucky they didn't add some concept of #include to the hosts file. That might have pushed the concept of DNS back another decade.)
Wolde you bothe eate your cake, and have your cake?
who buys desktops anymore? only retarded IT managers...
First of all - See subject line... & tell me you're NOT 'off topic'?
"I have no need or desire to address your supposed "facts" as doing so is not the purpose of this forum" - by ikkonoishi (674762) on Monday July 13, @11:48AM (#28677391)
Funny - I always felt forums WERE a place to discuss the topic @ hand, & not exercise profanity + adhominem attacks on the person stating ideas, but attacking &/or disproving ideas that are erroneous, for the good of all reading...
(Don't you mean that you lack the intelligence, facts, & overall wherewithall + intestinal fortitude to do so, rather? LOL!)
----
"You, of course, had the right to post your view, but you have to put up with whatever the internet sends your way in regards to comments." - by ikkonoishi (674762) on Monday July 13, @11:48AM (#28677391)
Yes, I do, & I have every right to expect others who do NOT disagree with them, to disprove the facts & tests I put up, instead of being called names, being modded down & when my post was modded up, modded down again, albeit based on name calling & profanities directed my way (the SURE SIGN OF LOSING & DEFEAT in debate, is "losing one's cool" & this post is REPLETE with that type of thing directed my way, in adhominem attacks, instead of disproving the points I made, with facts, or doing tests I noted such as this one when the poster was in error on this very topic -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1300193&cid=28673713 )
See HIS reply, because it is the "CLASSIC CASE" of what I am stating now, in being trolled, called names, adhominem attacked etc. & for what? Showing him he screwed up hugely??
He is not alone, this thread's full of THAT... nuff said.
APK
P.S.=> You like the film "The Watchmen"? Because ALL of you are making me laugh, thus you're ALL the "Comedian" & from the opening of the film & my "now famous list of accomplishments" I put up (fraction only mind you), well like I said there "My Name is OZYMANDIAS" & we ALL know, what HE did, to Comedian... lol!
"Windows 7 is coming." - by ikkonoishi (674762) on Monday July 13, @11:48AM (#28677391)
Never said it wasn't, only that it has problems & potentially really bad ones, especially per ROOTKIT.COM's findings, even more than my own... see here:
PERTINENT QUOTE EXCERPT:
http://www.rootkit.com/newsread.php?newsid=952
"BTW, the firewalls based on NDIS v6, which was introduced in Windows Vista, are much easier to unhook and bypass."
Speaking of the "Watchmen" again, on THAT particular note (& this musical one by Bob Dylan, once again)?
"Big BATTLE, outside ragin'... will soon shake your (Microsoft) Windows & RATTLE your (fire) walls... oh the times, they are a changin'..."
LMAO! apk
What is wrong with you? Why do you write like this? It is largely unreadable, and makes you seem crazy. In fact, it seems deliberating modeled on how a crazy person might speak with ridiculous emphasis and bizzare hints of self importance. The other things you've written under this name are equally strange. And I just can't imagine you would spend as much time writing useless applications that do ridiculously stupid things as your web presence suggests. Or writing up pages on the evils of a few extra bytes in a hosts file?
At this point, it seems fairly obvious you are either someone making up a fake, bizzaro Alexander Peter Kowalski character to see how people on the internet respond, or you are trying to make someone really named that look stupid. There's far more interesting things you could do with your time.
If your posts are sincere, you should probably get psychiatric help. But it doesn't look that way, you're trying too hard.
Yes of course the imacs are desktops, and they're not bad computers--we've got a couple at work. Even so, you start with I believe $1200 for the minimum. The PCs we buy with similar specs are several hundred cheaper (maybe 600-700 on average?). That sub-$1000 price point is a BIG one, especially for businesses.
Perhaps my biggest issue with the imacs is user serviceability. Last time I had a power supply go dead in one, it was going to be like $200 to replace it--$200 to fix a $1200 machine? Additionally, we do color work and the general feeling seems to be that the imacs are not that fantastic for color reproduction. If for whatever reason something about the imac doesn't work for you -- form factor/size, monitor quality, glossy, specs, whatever--you're screwed. Go pay for a mac pro.
On the personal side, while I absolutely love my mbp, I maintain a vista desktop at home. It's mostly a htpc. Mac mini is really not powerful enough for my usage, imac is out of the question, and so for a desktop at home, my first choice is 2k+ mac pro. That sucks. i would buy a mac mini tower or something along those lines in a heartbeat if it was $1000.
This is one of those things that really does make me pause and give some credence to those who say apple doesn't care about businesses.
"Prior to the invention of DNS, hosts files were the only way to do name -> address lookups on a IP network. So hosts files quickly became rather large." - by WuphonsReach (684551) on Monday July 13, @12:07PM (#28677687)
WuphonsReach - thanks for posting facts, vs. their misleading fictions etc. et al!
NOW - Want to laugh & see the type of thing I have been dealing with here?
See this one, it's CLASSIC (& there are TONS of others like it thru this thread, adhominem attacks galore, mistating facts, stating falsehoods, name calling & profanity + more DIRECTED MY WAY, instead of attacking my list of premises in my init. post's points (The "LORD OF HOSTS" is my 1st, start from there, review its points first & THEN see this) -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1300193&cid=28673713 )
Heh - You read that, & the posts immediately around it... (& tell me - SO, why was I modded down here for asking others to prove my points wrong for with concrete verifiable facts...?)
I also 'backup' my points as well, such as Oliver Day of SECURITYFOCUS.COM also recognizing the layered security value of HOSTS files here -> http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/491
(That plus, let alone testing offered proof, like the URL above where the poster flipped out on me, spewing profanities + adhominem attacks on me galore, & THAT kind of thing? Hey, all thru this thread no less you can see it directed MY way, when I posted proofs either @ a coding or tools level for said tests & THAT is what I get when they KNOW my "naysayers" here have messed up hugely - GEEK ANGST, for lack of a better expression, is what gets directed my way with other "trollery")
Anyhow/anyways - Thanks for your time...
APK
P.S.=> DNS is all "fine & dandy" but... Dan Kaminsky's work shows it CANNOT be 'fully absolutely trusted' either though, due to DNS poisoning & other hacks/cracks foisted upon it as well as "holes" in it that appear over time (Not that I do NOT use them, I opt for the best one I know of is all, in addition to my HOSTS file, in OpenDNS)...
My security guide here, they say I am NOT using "layered security"? Hey see here, IF you are curious -> http://www.tcmagazine.com/forums/index.php?s=e4473be2a007d388932bb27882f6f31c&showtopic=2662 & tell us what YOU think... again, thanks for YOUR time... apk
Holy crap! It's APK, the legend himself! He Who Shall Not Be Mentioned! http://episteme.arstechnica.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/12009443/m/1810993821?r=2310969821 You're a legend in the Ars forums, man. Hats off to your amazing ability to troll. You don't see many who master the craft like you do anymore.
$ make love
make: don't know how to make love. Stop
See subject-line: & this in return ->
"What is wrong with you?" - by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13, @12:30PM (#28678191)
I could ask the SAME thing... do you have ADD/ADHD & long posts disturb that? If so, sorry... this is a detailed topic, & miss one, you ALL miss the point etc. et al I am trying to make on HOSTS, on WFP vs. the older 3 driver/3 layer model of IP stack protection, & also about NDIS 6 by rootkit.com's findings...
----
Like I said, all thru this thread? AD-HOMINEM attacks on me, but "StRaNgELy", not my initial "LORD OF HOSTS" points, by disproving its points, point-by-point...
"At this point, it seems fairly obvious you are either someone making up a fake, bizzaro Alexander Peter Kowalski character to see how people on the internet respond, or you are trying to make someone really named that look stupid. There's far more interesting things you could do with your time." - by Anonymous Coward
on Monday July 13, @12:30PM (#28678191)
Sure it's NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND?
Ever see the film "THE WATCHMEN"? You guys are making me laugh, SO HARD, with your blatant offtopic trollery now, all I can picture is how OZYMANDIAS handled "the comedian"... see it if you have not... lmao!
APK
P.S.=> If you have dyslexia? Then you are also excused, but... NOT from being offtopic, which you & all my other "naysayers" now are, quite clearly so, because imo? You've all exhausted your know-how & are STUCK with name calling, profanities, being off topic + but perhaps WORST OF ALL NOW? Acting like "sidewalk PHD's" (minus the PHD in English of course to offer critique of my writing, which mahy others understand QUITE clearly)... you're using the OLDEST TROLL TRICK IN THE BOOK, & guess what??
"JEDI TROLL TRICKS DON'T WORK ON ME", only facts that are ON-TOPIC, which outright disprove my own (I have YET to see THAT much, especially vs. tests & backing from reputable or knowledgeable places like SECUNIA.COM &/or ROOTKIT.COM)... apk
I guess, after this posting? HEH. "THE LORD OF HOSTS" will do nicely, instead of your names? How's that treating you?? LMAO...
AND?
Please - See my subject-line, & this -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1300193&cid=28673889
Oh, man... was I ever right - arstechnica trolls are trying me once again (& as anyone can see? You're ALL not doing too well!)
That URL? Heh - it explains ALL you arstechnica people (you impersonated me, trolled me, & got your behinds handed to you for it - you only do that, to yourselves, everytime... & worse, parts of your sites removed, email harassement, IMPERSONATING ME & ADMITTING IT like Reimer has, you all did the same on your forums too... pitiful!)
"MY NAME IS OZYMANDIAS", lol, as I stated earlier in this thread here -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1300193&cid=28674815
(AND ... since you guys make me laugh so hard? You're ALL "comedians" & we ALL KNOW, what OZYMANDIAS did, to the Comedian @ the start of the film "the Watchmen"... lmao!
Same as I have done everytime you trolls do this to me, & you only bring it on yourselves... some people, never learn!)
----
"You don't see many who master the craft like you do anymore." by ninkendo84 (577928) on Monday July 13, @12:53PM (#28678549) Homepage
Yes, considering the trolling, off topic b.s., name calling & profanities directed my way here in adhominem attacks, including yours NOW, vs. my initial "THE LORD OF HOSTS" post above? I must have REALLY 'gotten under your skins' years ago, asking if ANY OF YOU had done what is in my "MY NAME IS OZYMANDIAS" list from where I post it here... not a single one of you could & you started following me all over trolling me (3dFiles, NTCompatible.com, Windows IT Pro & here + many other spots)
Guys - DO SOMETHING WITH YOUR LIVES instead of being trolls... you might even get 1 item like my list has, which started when you arstech trolls were in diapers... & no - not all of you are bogus, but many are.
APK
P.S.=> Yup, I knew it... trolls from arstechnica! When WILL you guys learn that Adhominem attacks, trollery, lies, critiquing others writing, profanity & name calling DO NOT WORK in debate & only show you are on the ropes & losing? Jeremy Reimer, Jay Little, & Jarett DeAngelis from your forums can tell you what happened to them for that, or the URL above can... TOO easy! apk
No. I remember back in the Win95/98 days an easy way to block ads was to use ad server-blocking HOSTS files, but they were never more than a hundred kilobytes or so, and even back then it was considered a hacky solution. Nowadays it's totally unnecessary with Adblock Plus and NoScript. Spybot Search & Destroy also allows you to add a list of known bad sites, but again, the list it creates is less than 250KB (less than 9000 entries - and it seems to contain two per site, as in www.nastysite.com and nastysite.com).
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
"He uses one. Just like I do... it works, read his article! Spybot S&D, a respected antispyware program, also uses them & helps make them stronger too... I suppose you know more than me, but Mr. Oliver Day & Spybot's people?"
There's a fundamental difference between the way they use it and the way you use it.
They used it to blackhole a select set of specific malware related addresses where the outbound Malware connections could use any port and could use any protocol.
You use it to filter fucking ad servers who you'll only ever be contacting via HTTP so would be much better served by an HTTP specific block such as say, a browser plugin or a proxy style app. Bloating your DNS resolutions by adding 650,000 odd hosts to check on each request is plain idiotic. Even your prized example, Oliver Stone that you keep referencing only blocks 16,500 hosts as per his article, that's a roughly 15 fold decrease in the number of hosts to check - that's more than an order of magnitude less.
Similarly Spybot does not blackhole anywhere near the amount of hosts in the hosts file that you do.
This is effectively your problem, your only justification for making the points you do is that "Well look someone else is doing it so I will too", the difference is, you don't understand their reasoning for it, you don't understand the repercussions, you just insist that it's okay to abuse it that way.
Regardless of that though, Oliver Stone's article is an opinion and nothing more, it's an individual opinion, and Spybot's method is similar their opinion on how to do it. But you see, for both of them there's thousands of IT professionals who would disagree with their method, I'm one of them. There are better solutions, perhaps the hosts file method is straightforward, it's certainly one of the easiest methods, but as you're finding it's not the intended use of the hosts file and ultimately it can lead to problems.
"I layer on several layers of software protection, in the interests of "layered security" (the recommended trend by security pros in computers) &, that seems to be doing well for others, not just myself:"
Yet here you go again, you really don't understand layered security. There is little point in layered protection like you suggest on Windows, because it only takes one layer to be vulnerable for the whole system compromised because of the poor way in which Windows is architected. If you add more layers, you're not necessarily adding more security, you're just adding more to go wrong and more to potentially cause problems. No, real layered security is about having a solid router and stateful firewall. With properly setup routing/NAT to prevent unsolicited incoming connections, and with any relevant servers setup in the DMZ. Layered security isn't about adding more and more layers for the sake of adding layers, it's about adding effective layers, but not more than are needed such that you end up with problems and possibly less security than you started with. Case in point, some years ago specific versions of Symantec and McAfee anti-virus didn't play well, have both on your system and neither would work, what use are the extra layers if they cause more of a security issue than just having one less layer? Again, you talk about something you've heard of, but you don't actually understand it.
"Have YOU done the same, Mr. Wannabe expert?"
I can't speak for the guy you're responding to, but I can speak for myself. No I didn't earn $100 writing up Windows spyware removal basics to a bunch of idiots on some non-factor site and for some non-factor publications. Instead, I spent years in a team managing a network, being responsible for security at an organisation with 11,000 employees and with over 100 sites distributed about the region. So fuck off with the bullshit about how you wrote an article and some shareware for a magazine aimed at Joe average who knows nothing about PCs, some of us have instead been working on high end real world security where dumping 650,000 hos
See my subject-line, & if you wish (because you did a GREAT JOB yourself on your own imo) & my initial "LORD OF HOSTS" post above...
SO -once more? Thanks for a valid logical sound reply based on facts, instead of the arstechnica trollery here (& yes, the finally showed their faces on that account, & I knew it was they).
APK
P.S.=> All in all, an INTERESTING thread, lots of viewpoints, but no disproving any of my points, not even 1...
So, despite the trollery, adhominem attacks, avoidance of questions & even TESTS I wrote + backing from the likes of rootkit.com &/or SECUNIA.COM's Oliver Day (specifically in regards to HOSTS files no less, he also espouses their usage, for reasons much like yours no less) + points I made in response to others here... a question:
Can you tell me WHY I WAS MODDED DOWN in my initial "LORD OF HOSTS" post though?
Hey - I wasn't tossing names, or being profane, or rude to others + I certainly answered questions + provided facts & backing as you have... mystifying! (NOT! Arstechnica trolls are known for this worldwide, & what I call their "online 'not man' behaviour" + trollish sock puppet unjustified mod downs, impersonating others, & trollery in general)... apk
If you enjoy playing games with friends who are sitting on the same actual sofa as you, you must *definitely* be 9.
If you enjoy playing games with friends, and the friends are sitting on a sofa with you, you must be 9 because otherwise, you could work to buy your own PC and your own copy of each game and become a card-carrying member of the LAN party.
</devils-advocate>
Seriously though did they plan 360games to take 1 day with little difficulty each
If you really want to bring back the days of Nintendo-hard video games, go into a game's menu and change "DIFFICULTY: EASY" to "DIFFICULTY: EXPERT". Or put I Wanna Be The Guy on your PC.
Shared host files could provide a DNS-proof method of reaching sites, not to mention removing an additional vector of detection if anyone were trying to monitor the use of subversive sites.
Yeah, great. Never mind that the DNS was developed because static hosts files became unwieldy and impossible to keep up to date for ever growing numbers of hosts.
Rudolf Hess edited Mein Kampf. He was the very first grammar nazi.
"That's nice, but can you actually program?" - by Xest (935314) on Monday July 13, @01:22PM (#28679117)
Gee, does THIS answer that much:
http://www1.techpowerup.com//downloads/390/APK_Matrix_ScreenSaver.html
or how about this:
http://www1.techpowerup.com//downloads/389/foowhatevermakesgooglehappy.html
?
(Prepare yourselves for another "wall of text" & b.s. evasions or word-semantic gameplay - the 'trademarks' of the arstechnica trolls!)
Funny YOU should ask THAT though - I asked your forums members that question ages ago, circa 2000/2001 & was furiously trolled (& not a one could produce evidences like the 2 I just did, & over @ Windows IT Pro forums when Jeremy Reimer was caught impersonating me, email harassing me, off topic the whole time (trademark, like I said) & I asked him if HE had, he said he had - I asked for proofs? He had ZERO... typical arstechnica!)
They didn't like that, after they started up with me & I wanted to know their skillrange (only PeterB was 1/2 decent, but no programs to show back then either... on his part!)... I was trolled by them like now, ever since (man, almost 10 yrs. worth forums to forums - that's pretty sick & obsessive guys - get over it!)
Prepare for more easily beaten or deflected b.s., everyone & be entertained by how easy these arstech trolls are taken care of via simple facts & their own screwups:
----
"You use it to filter fucking ad servers" - by Xest (935314) on Monday July 13, @01:22PM (#28679117)
Yes, I do... you always THAT perceptive & 'smart' (NOT)? Even adbanners have been shown to harbor malicious scripts for years now, in fact, recently on this very site no less... & by doing so? I get an "HBO internet" no commercials, I stay safer, & go faster... lots of gains!
----
"There's a fundamental difference between the way they use it and the way you use it." - by Xest (935314) on Monday July 13, @01:22PM (#28679117)
Actually I use a HOSTS to do what Spybot does, because I use their data & ALL the ones @ wikipedia.com, + other sources like SRI too & more... to filter known bad sites, PLUS, to yes, block adgbanners (I pay for my linetime, I want ALL my speed, especially vs. adbanners TODAY, since they've been found to be full of bogus code & exploits too, & for years now on occasion)
----
"Similarly Spybot does not blackhole anywhere near the amount of hosts in the hosts file that you do." - by Xest (935314) on Monday July 13, @01:22PM (#28679117)
Great: I use mvps.org's HOSTS' file data too, & they do more as well... so are we "bad guys" for protecting ourselves...?
----
"Yet here you go again, you really don't understand layered security. There is little point in layered protection like you suggest on Windows, because it only takes one layer to be vulnerable for the whole system compromised because of the poor way in which Windows is architectedby Xest (935314) on Monday July 13, @01:22PM (#28679117)
LOL, you know, the same could be said of *NIX variants (look @ MacOS X's partially fixed only scripting hole still present for example, & they "rant & rave their stuff is unbreakable", or "doesn't get worms/botnets" etc. et al (I can provide CURRENT PROOF OF BOTH, would you like that??)
AND, seems folks do pretty well using my security guides to harden Windows, per this evidence testimonial thereof next:
----
HOW TO SECURE Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 & VISTA even, + make it "fun-to-do", via CIS Tool Guidance (& beyond):
http://ww
"Citing Oliver Day's opinion piece as justification for abusing the hosts file is absolutely laughable. Not only because he suggests something different, but also because some of his ideas for this file are not exactly smart." - by silanea (1241518) on Monday July 13, @02:30PM (#28680381)
Oh look: Guys, this fellow is "smarter" than someone who works for a SYMANTEC owned site in security... lol! Yea, ok - "Sure" (sarcasm)...
LOL, per my subject-line, look @ Dan Kaminsky's findings on DNS servers first of all, & secondly, ever heard of DNS poisoning?
APK
P.S.=>
"Never mind that the DNS was developed because static hosts files became unwieldy and impossible to keep up to date for ever growing numbers of hosts." - by silanea (1241518) on Monday July 13, @02:30PM (#28680381)
WoW... a "historian" too! Will wonders never cease... "gee, I didn't know that" (not) but, it seems myself, the fellow THRONKA from my testimonial, & even sootman here, http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1300193&cid=28677363 has an opinion that 'varies just a wee bit' from yours, eh, on HOSTS files... lol, TOO easy!
(You guys are not very good, going off topic, avoiding my points & disproving them (oh, many tried, but 'suddenly'? They seem to have stalled... lol!) & doing 'adhominem attacks' directed my way, off topic as per usual... please - I remember when guys like PeterB from ars actually gave me somewhat CLOSE to a 'run for my money' @ least, but you & "the manager" here? NOT!)
ONE WOULD THINK YOUR TYPICAL 3:1 gangups would serve you arstech trolls better, along with your sock puppet moddowns... not vs. me. You guys NEVER manage to get the best of me, but, that's why obsessive internet psycho stalkers like you have followed me around forums to forums for 10 yrs. for PETE's sake, lol... & still cannot manage it. I actually feel bad for you guys because your name tossing, offtopic, & pure b.s. "arstechnica not men tactics"? Don't work on me... only FACTS would + on topic ones... apk
I could ask the SAME thing... do you have ADD/ADHD & long posts disturb that? If so, sorry... this is a detailed topic, & miss one, you ALL miss the point etc. et al I am trying to make on HOSTS, on WFP vs. the older 3 driver/3 layer model of IP stack protection, & also about NDIS 6 by rootkit.com's findings...
Look at what you wrote there. How can that possible make sense? "If so, sorry, this is a detailed topic, & miss one, you ALL miss the point etc.". That sentence is ridiculous. Are you trying to say: 'This is a detailed topic, and if you miss one point you miss all of them'.
And look at "do you have ADD/ADHD & long posts disturb that".
P.S.=> If you have dyslexia? Then you are also excused, but... NOT from being offtopic, which you & all my other "naysayers" now are, quite clearly so, because imo? You've all exhausted your know-how & are STUCK with name calling, profanities, being off topic + but perhaps WORST OF ALL NOW? Acting like "sidewalk PHD's" (minus the PHD in English of course to offer critique of my writing, which mahy others understand QUITE clearly)... you're using the OLDEST TROLL TRICK IN THE BOOK, & guess what??
You have a Phd in English, and you can't tell that passage is bizzare? "If you have dyslexia? Then you are also excused, but... NOT from being offtopic, which you & all my other "naysayers" now are, quite clearly so, because imo?". Why is "NOT" capitalized? Why do you start off with a half of a question, then answer it strangely. What's with the "..." everywhere? Why is "naysayers" in quotes?
What does "because imo" mean at the end of that sentence? Is it just thrown in? In what context does "because in my opinion" fit at the end of a sentence?
Also, what does "being off topic + but perhaps WORST OF ALL NOW" mean? I am stuck with being off topic "and but perhaps worst of all now"?
"sidewalk phd" is not an expression. No one uses that. Ever. It doesn't even make sense. Do you mean "armchair phd"?
Why in the world did you throw in '"JEDI TROLL TRICKS DON'T WORK ON ME"'. Does it really need quotes and capitals? How can you actually type that in without feeling incredibly stupid?
Why is every third word capitalized?
Sure it's NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND?
How does that make sense? I said you are pretending to be some character named Alexander Peter Kowalski to troll on a bunch of forums. How can that be the other way around? Is someone named Alexander Peter Kowalski pretending to be whoever you really are? Are you two pretending to be each other to make each other look stupid?
minus the PHD in English of course to offer critique of my writing, which mahy others understand QUITE clearly
Do you really think people understand this drivel?
How do you "laugh hugely"?
Why did you put "get the better of" in quotes?
What does "as per usual" mean?
What does it mean to say they they have "the devil on [their] backs with [their] off topic trollery"? And why does that make you question that they "burn time trying to attack [you]"?
Why did you list four things as "one, two & three + four"?
You never finish this remark "By this point, you guys evading my tests, points & facts + examples".
Yes, if you want to pay more for extremely expensive features (e.g. Xeon processors) that are completely uncessary even for most power users then you won't pay more with Apple. But Apple doesn't offer a high end, fully powered, generally top of the line, workstation like, say, Dell does, without expensive enterprise features. All they offer is All-In-Ones, which still aren't cheap or upgradeable, and lock you into a display, with no advantage, and a way underpowered overpriced unupgradeable Mini that lets you deal with the costs and inferiority of laptop parts, in exchange for a form factor that has no real benefits for most (and looks stupid when fully hooked up with a bunch of cords and a gigantic power brick).
[...] that's why obsessive internet psycho stalkers like you have followed me around forums to forums for 10 yrs [...]
You, sir, are a certified weirdo.
Rudolf Hess edited Mein Kampf. He was the very first grammar nazi.
Thank you very much for the link! It surely makes for an entertaining read. And there I was, wondering whether there is more to that person...
Absolutely hilarious.
Rudolf Hess edited Mein Kampf. He was the very first grammar nazi.
I was referring mostly to the software issues of Windows. Time spent installing drivers, booting and rebooting, being interrupted every five minutes when the OS decides it needs to install its weekly update, frustration with clunky software compared to Apple iLife, and malware.
My mom and my sister both had all of those problems when they lived with Windows. One by one I converted them to Macs and now they can write books, burn CDs, edit and upload photos, and install their own tax software. And I don't have to fix some broken driver or missing file every six months. And I have a pleasant OS to work on when I visit.
I have Windows XP on my MacBook Pro too. Sometimes I need it, but when I can accomplish a task in either OS, I never find the Windows way to be more efficient or elegant.
There might also be hardware issues, but I haven't played with $400 laptop hardware enough to know.
"Thank you very much for the link! It surely makes for an entertaining read." - by silanea (1241518) on Monday July 13, @04:46PM (#28682311)
I'll say: Considering ALL you boys have is this off-topic arstechnica avoidance of disproving my points in my original "THE LORD OF HOSTS" post, & then using data from 'arstechnica: the home of the no degree in computer sciences nor certification in computer sciences (yet I am am allegedly a writer about them that is qualified in Jeremy Reimer's impersonate others' personal playpen online' website?
----
"Anyway the "APK" registered here is just an affectionate clone of the original. In fact I prefer him to the original." - Jeremy Reimer - March 25, 2005
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22OSY%22+and+%22affectionate+clone%22+and+%22Reimer%22&btnG=Search
----
That's the EXACT quote where your own Jeremy Reimer had to ADMIT to impersonating me on his OSY forums, & that's good enough to show you guys did that to me on the arstechnica forums as well... so: Please - Give us a break arstech boys:
You guys lose your pants each time you confront me, & have to do your "offtopic trolling profane let's impersonate APK & others" posts online & it only shows folks what you're really made of... do I have to spell out, what THAT is?
(See the above quote from your own in Jeremy Reimer - because, that about "sums it up", for me... lmao!)
APK
P.S.=> All you guys have is having been caught ADMITTING to impersonating me online (Reimer did so @ his OSY website, admitting to it no less above... it shows just how low you all are, & your "showing" here vs. the points I brought up in technicals? Heh, your having to 'run off topic' here, does the rest! apk
"Symantec is among the last companies I would turn to when IT security - or software at all - is concerned. They sport quite a track record for lousy software, ranging from rootkit-like folder hiding that promptly got exploited by malware to shoddy ActiveX controls. And their products rather reliably kill Windows installations." - by silanea (1241518) on Monday July 13, @04:31PM (#28682131)
I suppose you've done better? Show me your products by way of comparison - thanks!
----
"At least their detection rates have apparently improved recently." - by silanea (1241518) on Monday July 13, @04:31PM (#28682131)
I suppose yours (that don't exist, lol), are better?
----
"Re. DNS cache poisoning: Yes, it does happen. No, hosts files will not protect you from it unless you want your online experience to suck hard enough to create a vacuum in the Intertubes." - by silanea (1241518) on Monday July 13, @04:31PM (#28682131)
When you hardcode in a set of your favorites? You don't even MAKE port 53 udp queries to potentially DNS poisoned DNS servers, period... &, as long as said sites do NOT change their hosting provider? It works (most sites rarely do, & IF they do? They tell you - so you can update a hardcoded IP address in a HOSTS file if needed, and, hardocded IP addys in a HOSTS actually make you go a BIT faster to that site, AND, if your DNS server goes down?? You STILL CAN REACH IT, when others will NOT be able to)
Always 2 sides to EVERY coin...
----
"How would you prevent this attack type by using a hosts file? Unless you want to add every single host you want to visit to the file. Oh, wait, that is where you get the 14 megs from!" - by silanea (1241518) on Monday July 13, @04:31PM (#28682131)
See the above, & the 14mb sized HOSTS I have is mostly blocked out KNOWN adbanner servers, or, known bad sites, from data from the wikipedia page for HOSTS files (mvps.org, my own from years ago, + spybot S&D, SRI, & others of good repute too)... &, remember: When a DNS server "goes down/dead"? That same technique will "take you there", when others cannot reach it (& proof you vs. poisoned DNS servers).
Again - always 2 sides, to EVERY coin...
----
"Re. thronka: Assuming the testimonial is genuine, whatever I say about your idea being stupid applies to their liking your idea analogously." - by silanea (1241518) on Monday July 13, @04:31PM (#28682131)
You know, I keep forgetting that YOU are SMARTER than Mr. Oliver Day of SECURITYFOCUS.COM... lol, trying to invalidate a reputable known security pro in favor of yourself? Hehe, good luck!
----
"Re. sootman: "Mine is only 216k [...]". Plus I still think it is stupid to abuse the hosts file as a filter. sootman wants an ad blocker; that is what Ad Block Plus is for - application-level filtering that does not impact the system as a whole." - by silanea (1241518) on Monday July 13, @04:31PM (#28682131)
BOTTOM-LINE: Who CARES what YOU think, &... lol, who said you could "THINK" @ all, or, @ least clearly??
(Newsflash - you're no 'authority' on the subject, & most certainly not when you boys avoid disproving the points in my original "THE LORD OF HOSTS" posting here, @ any cost, via adhominem attacks on myself, & NOW on YOUR part, towards Mr. Oliver Day of SecurityFocus.com as well... please!)
----
"You of all people in this thread accuse us of going off topic? You high or something? Who replied to a humorous reference to a masterpiece of comedy with a weirdly formatted flame promoting equally weird believes? Besides, we may be bashing your professional appearance, but that is only because your opinions lead us to question it." - by silanea (1241518) on Monday July 13, @04:31PM (#28682131)
Yes, you folks a
My post was in reply to, "the mac pro is bad as they can get a systems from dell , hp and others for about $1000-$1500 less with more ram and better base video card." If you actually go to Dell's site and try to build a an eight-core Xeon machine with all of the same specs as the Mac Pro you'll only save a couple hundred dollars. An eight-core HP costs several hundred more than the Apple. Go try it for yourself.
Great. You left half the components out and it came to $1,000 less. Go figure. (The base config is really awesome with its 1GB of RAM) If you add the second CPU, memory, the cheapest 512MB video card, a gigabit NIC, a Firewire card, and a DVD burner you'll see that the price is over $3000.
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1300193&cid=28678549
See that URL, it's proof enough as to what the artech trolls do, because they "Showed their tell"/"showed their hand" right here in this very thread in that URL above... & they are relentless "online internet psycho stalkers" that use WOMEN tactics (which is why I call them "the not men of arstechnica" lol)... period.
(They are notorious, but hilariously easy to get the better of... they do things like avoiding disproving my points here & instead trying "ad hominem" attacks directed my way, alongside profanities & more... but strangely (not) avoiding attacking my points themselves (which is all I ask for, if I am wrong? It will only make me stronger, mistakes are GOOD that way - but, if I am not, well... you know (&, I am not, enough backing of my points from reputable sources like Oliver Day of SECURITYFOCUS.COM & rootkit.com's findings are some evidences to THAT effect that do so in backing my "LORD OF HOSTS" post))
"Wait so let me get this straight, you've actually convinced yourself that you're being stalked across the internet by one or two specific people (who lets face it, probably wouldn't even know you've posted on Slashdot and probably have better things to do than scour the internet for your movements anyway)" - by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13, @07:34AM (#28674379)
I'm not just TELLING you, I am instead SHOWING YOU, via the URL just above your quote...
LMAO - These guys from arstech? They're pretty twisted.
E.G.-> I left their website in 2001 & have NOT gone back... others told me that they have kept up a "tirade of trollery" (love alliteration!) directed my way the likes of which you would NOT believe...
I.E.-> Heck, if you hit their episteme.arstechnica.com forums there?
Search "APK" & be amazed... Yes, to the point where they even impersonated me, but got caught, per the quote below where it was forced out of the "main perpetrator" Jeremy Reimer:
----
"Anyway the "APK" registered here is just an affectionate clone of the original. In fact I prefer him to the original." - Jeremy Reimer - March 25, 2005
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22OSY%22+and+%22affectionate+clone%22+and+%22Reimer%22&btnG=Search
----
Nuff said... it's right there, & in black & white in their OWN words...
APK
the real retard is ericfitz because using "0" is better than using "127.0.0.1" any day of the week. it is even better than using 0.0.0.0 witch vista is using. for there hosts file. next dns client service should not be used because all it will do is slow your computer down. and any body that thinks different is the real retard. and i can say this because i use AC method of securing my computer.
"How do you "laugh hugely"?" - by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13, @03:37PM (#28681299)
I get a GIGANTIC laugh out of this, where I caught arstechnica's own Jeremy Reimer impersonating me, & his hosting providers removed large tracts of his OSY website, & he was forced to ADMIT he impersonated me there in fact (that, or lose his website I wager):
----
"Anyway the "APK" registered here is just an affectionate clone of the original. In fact I prefer him to the original." - Jeremy Reimer - March 25, 2005
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22OSY%22+and+%22affectionate+clone%22+and+%22Reimer%22&btnG=Search [google.com]
----
Nuff said on THAT account...
APK
P.S.=> Well, there is also the fact they "showed their tell" here, finally, showing they're just "up to their old tricks" (easily seen thru transparent ones no less) again, such as this post on THIS forums (where they show their arstechnica forums impersonations of myself, most likely, like usual etc. et al) -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1300193&cid=28678549
Proof's right there, with a few others (once I "push the right buttons", showing them as technically inept @ levels they do NOT understand in this science, as my "LORD OF HOSTS POST" here obviously does (why else do "adhominem attacks" on me, complete with profanity & off topic trollery then)? They ALWAYS "show their tell"... they lose their tempers & cool and there you are...)
The guy who maintains a list of URL's of supposed posts of mine? The "Man With No Head" from arstechnica?? Heh, he's actually more like "THE MAN WITH NO BALLS", lmao... apk
"Someone has got himself a time machine..." - by ci4 (98735) on Monday July 13, @08:53AM (#28674883)
LOL, man - Funniest part is, while I post this? I am watching "The Time Machine" coincidentally enough (remake from 2002, & the main character is my namesake, unlike the original, oddly enough, also)... ironic!
("APK looks out the window", lol (not))
It's a great story... & I love this part from it: "THE FUTURE IS NOW" (because it used to be my IRC parting message (part of it) & part of my "signature" on forums from years & years ago)
APK
P.S.=> Irony & coincidence abounds... & in any event, if you are the person who modded up my postings here? Thanks for your time (& effort) in the doing of it... apk
the one tat is full of crap is you i use the hosts file just fine. and it does not slow me down as long as it is "0" format and not in "127.0.0.1" or the "0.0.0.0" format. yes disabling JavaScript helps stop the viruses but using the hosts file helps too. can you tell me what kind of mail is unsolicited email. i do not care what kind of firewall you have it still can be hacked if the person is good enough. and that is why i still use a hosts file. before i had a hosts file i would get hit with viruses and maleware and trojens. i would get 10 -20 of these a week some times more. with out a hosts file. so i believe the only on full of crap is you.
"You need your own, separate Internet." - by rant64 (1148751) on Monday July 13, @09:16AM (#28675111)
Heh, naw... I'll settle for my safer, faster, no adbanners "HBO style Internet"(especially vs. adbanners, which not only slow you down, but, which also have had malicious code found in them, recently & more than just a few times the past few years now in fact & it was shown here on /. more than a few times no less)
Nicest part is, HOSTS files are "GLOBAL" in nature - & unlike say, something like NoScript (which only works w/ MOZILLA FIREFOX products)? HOSTS files cover ALL webbrowsers universally, are easy to edit & manage using a text editor like notepad.exe, & all you have to do is be able to read english really!
HOSTS files also even cover other internet-bound programs, like email programs for instance as well (which are subject to attack also via HTML view of mails for example, & scripts therein).
(So, there is some "FOOD FOR THOUGHT" 4U, enjoy!)
APK
P.S.=> I figure it this way, & so should you all: I pay for my linetime out of my own pocket, this co$t$ money - why slow yourself down, when you pay for that speed, by downloading adbanners & ones possibly infested with malicious content as well? Nope - I'll take faster, & SAFER online time anytime, via a HOSTS file (& it covers ANY & ALL outbound to the internet applications too, from one single easily managed source no less)... apk
See my subject-line, & realize that is the "1 limitation" to otherwise FINE products (and I layer those on as well)... why?
My line of thought is this, via a simple question: Do you use DeadBolt, door handle, & chain bolt locks on the doors of your home (if not alarm systems & surveillance cameras)?
Folks do, & with GOOD SOLID REASONS: "Layered multiple levels of security"... bust one? The others are IN THE WAY (& at least something is)...
Which was my "bitch" about WFP single part design of Windows VISTA, Server 2008, & Windows 7's design in part, vs. Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 using a 3 part "zone defense"/"greek phalanx" type design (take 1 down? The others are IN THE WAY, like the door analogy I did above sort of)...
That, alongside the fact MS has made HOSTS files usage inefficient in them (by disallowing the smaller, faster & more EFFICIENT 0 blocking IP address, vs. the larger, slower, & less efficient 0.0.0.0 & worse yet, the loopback adapter 127.0.0.1 address)
Top that off, with the content from ROOTKIT.COM in my "LORD OF HOSTS" post above, showing that VISTA/Server2k8/Windows 7's NDIS 6 layer is far more easily "unhooked & bypassed", via kernel patching/kernel hooking methods, that malware makers have started using the past few years now
(Sad part is? Many of these malware makers are pretty proficient coders really, & it's sad imo as a fellow coder to see guys misusing their talent for ill gotten gains that harm others really, but... they DO 'serve a purpose', in that they expose what is problematic to the OS + wares makers out there, so, all is not bad - "when life gives you lemons? MAKE LEMONADE!" (& see that 'bright-side' when you can, in all things, when you are able to... optimism is better than pessimism in other words, imo @ least!))
Good point on Spybot too, I use its data myself... thanks for your time & points in posting as well!
APK
"No idea" - by sootman (158191) on Monday July 13, @01:45PM (#28679525)
OH, lol, NOW I do... see here -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1300193&cid=28678549
The proof of my subject-line is there, in plain english + black & white...
Arstechnica trolls, lol... They've been online "stalking me" for a long time, forums to forums, as you can see here now in fact... &, since 2001 believe it or not! They gang up on folks 10:1 trying to give them static, but lol, always lose (because they always "show their hand" & give themselves away, as they did in the URL above).
(Simply searching their episteme.arstechnica.com forums for "APK" will show ANYONE that much, & I have not been there since 2001 when I left there... others told me about it, & I was like "WoW... some people!", you know? OCD & what-not?? I don't know, all I know is they operate in ways that women do, via deceit largely, which is why I call them "the 'not men' online", lol!)
Steer clear of them - oh, they're easy enough to get the better of via watching them go offtopic, begin using profanity, skimming & making mistakes galore, adhominem attacks attacking people instead of their points in posts, & lastly: EVEN TO IMPERSONATING OTHERS (like myself)... proof of THAT statement? Here it is:
----
"Anyway the "APK" registered here is just an affectionate clone of the original. In fact I prefer him to the original." - Jeremy Reimer - March 25, 2005
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22OSY%22+and+%22affectionate+clone%22+and+%22Reimer%22&btnG=Search
----
He's the "main perpetrator" of much of it, & is KNOWN for it...
Folks here even call JEREMY REIMER a troll -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1273561&threshold=-1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&pid=28382013 & folks from his own forums even apparently! He's only doing himself in slowly, as his true self is apparently showing thru even to "his own" over @ ARSTECHNICA (the home of the troll online)...
----
Well, I "feel for you" in wondering why the heck you were modded down, but... hey: @ least YOU are not "graced with" an online "stalker fanclub" like I have in the arstechnica trolls... count your blessings on that account @ least, lol!
APK
P.S.=> Ssd really... Jeremy Reimer in particular has ruined his reputation online, so badly, that nobody will post his "so-called articles"!
(Which is 'articles' are mere reports @ best, plagiaristic regurgitations spewed onto the net @ worst (which the latter is the case from he, 9/10 times))...
I figure Jeremy Reimer's pretty "bent" about that, but, as you can see above? Nobody likes impersonators of others or trusts them (especially those posing as authorities in this art & science, yet, lacking any degrees or certifications in it, as he is guilty of)...
Thus, because he is 'touched' imo? Well - I have to deal with he & his "flocks of anonymous multiple logon names sock puppet accounts hoards" attacking me: Pitiful, because they have YET to "get the better of me" in things technical for over 8++ yrs. now online in they doing so...)
I actually sort of pity them - some folks never learn it seems! apk
That's why he said "nearly everyone". Pretty much only difference nowadays between a Xeon and the desktop processor it's based off of is that it's multi-CPU capable and supports ECC ram (well, and price). Well, the base Mac Pro only has one CPU socket, so multi-CPU is out. So you're paying $1600 for ECC ram. For $1600, I think I can live without it, especially considering the base Mac Pro is crippled and can only accept a total of 8GB of ram, where as those Dells can accept more.
And you can hardly cry fowl when people compare a $900 Dell to a $2750 Apple when the $2750 Apple is the only thing in Apple's line up that's even remotely similar.
eight-core
I don't want eight cores. I want something more powerful than Apple's $600 headless laptop but less expensive than the least expensive Mac Pro.
Buying laptops for everyone would be even more retarded. They cost more, break more, are harder to repair, run slower, are more easily stolen, have shorter lifetimes, have batteries that wear out, and have poor ergonomics (unless you spend even more and buy extra keyboards/mice/monitors). It really only makes sense to buy a laptop for those that actually need one for their job, and unless they are almost always traveling they'll probably want a desktop too.
WTF? You are convinced that people follow you around on the web to "discredit" (I use the term loosely since it is unlikely you ever had any "credit") your name, you threaten people with frivolous lawsuits when they say something you don't like and you take screen captures of your post moderations? Seriously, WTF?
First of all, I have no idea who you are and I don't really care. From what I can see in this little exchange is you're some random asshole with self-esteem problems and a severe case of paranoia. I highly doubt anyone would e-stalk you because...wait for it...you're simply not important or noteworthy in any way.
Secondly, your little lawsuit threats are laughable. No real attorney (ie. not Leonard "J" Crabs) in the land would tell you that you have a chance in hell with a libel case. All you are doing is making yourself look like an even bigger idiot.
Finally, screenshotting your anonymous Slashdot post because you got a 0 moderation? That is just too pathetic to even comment on.
It sounds like you need to seek psychiatric help and maybe hire a hooker or two so you can finally lose your virginity.
lol so your argument for the op being full of crap is that your dont know what you're on about either?
you're as much of an idiot as the AC guy lol
you can say what you want because you are going to any way. no matter what i say. the thing i am saying is i use a hosts file along with some other principles of securing my computer, so jerks like you can not hack in to my computer. if you try to hack my computer you will be in a world of trouble.
"Do us all a favour, quit posting anything to the internet, spend a few years updating your knowledge to learn a worthwhile language like C++, Java or one of the .NET languages. Get a clue about security and understand why your applications are a far bigger security risk than anything you talk of and finally, stop threatening to sue anyone you disagree with." - by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13, @05:00AM (#28673669)
I have used C & C++ since 1992 (where I learned it during my education/college) & professionally in many assignments (MSVC++ and Borland C++ Builder) and .NET I used most all last year (VB.NET & ASP.NET via Visual Studio 2005) I seriously doubt you have ever used them yourself, so, so much for that.
----
"But wait, it appears you didn't stop there, I also found this:" - by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13, @05:00AM (#28673669)" - by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13, @05:00AM (#28673669)
Thor SCHMUCK? LOL, the guy is a joke... what's he ever accomplished that's been noted in any publications in this field, and the Computer Associates (the joke the industry)? The last company I worked for used their "security suite" and had to take it out because it was screwing up the email system... I wrote an application for a fellow on the NTCompatible.com forums way back when who complained that Apache (old model he used) would not run invisibly on screen. It is trivial to use many function calls for spawning a process via their parameters possible to make an app launch invisibly so to help he, I wrote it up & when I wrote them about it? Greg Jensen (head of that suite) couldn't even get my emails and for the same reasons. By the way, I was outraged at that, because Thor SCHMUCK submitted that old program of mine to them under "Peter Kowalski" so I'd never find it if I googled for it etc. - he is a jack ass of the first order & so are the morons @ CA. I did their review to have it removed, 21 questions, and my application did not violate a SINGLE constraint. So much for them and Mr. Thor SCHMUCK. Others, like Dr. Mark Russinovich even, and Nir Sofer of Nirsoft have also been victimized by this type of thing happening, so I am not alone in that much.
----
"Er, a program built entirely around breaking the hosts file using it for purposes it is simply not intended? Again, do you have any idea about the subject you preach? Do you realise that your very own programs pose a security risk? Do you realise how trivial it would be for Malware to hide malicious redirects in hosts files of the size you are talking meaning yet another one of your programs is a vessel for anti-security?" - by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13, @05:00AM (#28673669)
Do you even have a degree in this science, and have YOU ever written an application that did well (or any at all)? I'd like to see proof of either on your part. LOL, my program is for removing duplicated entries in HOSTS file, and to alphabetize entries in a HOSTS file, not to "bushwhack" it. Learn to read, or actually possess a degree around the science of programming (because after this statement, I am fairly certain you possess neither, nor any hands-on experience coding yourself, professionally).
----
"And there's more:
http://episteme.arstechnica.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/51009562/m/3680937305
Threatening to sue again on online forums because people didn't like the fact you were using them to advertise your dodgy Delphi programs?" - by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13, @05:00AM (#28673669)" - by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13, @05:00AM (#28673669)
When you get libelled & impersonated by someone? That's grounds for legal action, proof of that, by the dork @ "arstechnica" who did so? Ok, his own words quoted below (where
I seem to recall XP's RTM build was 2600, I recall it being very stable too.
- Dan
"Your initial comments seemed idiotic, you were complaining about your 15mb+ hosts file being slow to load. Sorry, but what the fuck? You have a 15mb+ hosts file? are you really that clueless about IT?" - by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13, @05:00AM (#28673669)
Where did I say it was "slow to load", verbatim, first of all... I merely make it load F A S T E R, via using a smaller + more efficient blocking IP address for sites that house objectionable material, or are KNOWN to hijack users via malicious script housed in them, or other bad behavior on their part... & do YOU have a "clue about IT" or even a degree in it of any kind? I'd like to see proof of YOUR "alleged expertise" in it.
The HOSTS file does work for blocking out KNOWN BAD SITES or adbanners that slow you down (& a user has EVERY RIGHT to do that, especially since lately adbanners have been shown to harbor malicious script in them. In fact, there was a big article here on /. about it -> http://it.slashdot.org/story/09/06/15/2056219/The-Next-Ad-You-Click-May-Be-a-Virus so, so much for YOUR "know-how" in this art & science...)
APK
P.S.=> One day, you'll screwup here OR elsewhere online (since it is obvious you DO know me, & aren't fooling anyone in that much by this point - you're doubtless another "arstechnica forums troll" (as Jeremy Reimer is even thought of as here ->
----
"Anyway the "APK" registered here is just an affectionate clone of the original. In fact I prefer him to the original." - Jeremy Reimer - March 25, 2005
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22OSY%22+and+%22affectionate+clone%22+and+%22Reimer%22&btnG=Search
----
He's the "main perpetrator" of much of it, & is KNOWN for it... & they eventually showed their face here in THIS VERY THREAD -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1300193&cid=28678549 [slashdot.org] and I do NOT take kindly to being impersonated or libelled either. Nobody does.
(Giving themselves away, & you are doubtless just another one of them - LOL, "you don't know me", b.s. -> You could not have turned up that much in that short a time, & it is obvious you have been following me around because over @ the New Tech? The forums there is SO SLOW, you'd have to have done that)
Folks here even call JEREMY REIMER a troll -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1273561&threshold=-1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&pid=28382013
Again - so much for your "evidences"... & it is clear you are just another "arstechnica loser" or THOR SCHMUCK himself... and I will know who YOU are - then, we'll see how you like being libelled as you have now done to myself... because I won't use falsehoods as you have done to myself here... apk
the only reason i could think of why they are down modding you is because they are afraid of losing there so called fans. or better yet money and fame they my have. but i prefer the real AC over the cloned AC any day. keep up the good work APK. things will turn around and they know they can not stop it from happening.
"WTF? You are convinced that people follow you around on the web" - by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 14, @01:02AM (#28686791)
Oh, I think this alone in this very thread, functions to prove THAT much easily -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1300193&cid=28678549
So much for that "evidence" of yours... & more is below (where the arstechnica people even IMPERSONATED ME ONLINE, & admitted to it no less in Jeremy Reimer of arstechnica whom his own forums folks call a troll no less (proof of that is below, from GOOGLE itself where it abounds))
Funniest part is? I left their forums in 2001, & they have done this ever since then across many forums & (they have even impersonated me online (proof below of that much)).
----
"to "discredit" (I use the term loosely since it is unlikely you ever had any "credit") your name" - by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 14, @01:02AM (#28686791)
Really? Have you done ANYTHING remotely even like this list of some of my accomplishments that others noted as good etc. in this art & science?
Somehow? I strongly DOUBT you have...
"My Name is Ozymandias: King of Kings - Look upon my works, ye mighty, & DESPAIR..."
Windows NT Magazine (now Windows IT Pro) pril 1997 "BACK OFFICE PERFORMANCE" issue, page 61
(&, for work done for EEC Systems/SuperSpeed.com on PAID CONTRACT (writing portions of their SuperCache program increasing its performance by up to 40% via my work) albeit, for their SuperDisk & HOW TO APPLY IT, took them to a finalist position @ MS Tech Ed, two years in a row).
WINDOWS MAGAZINE, 1997, "Top Freeware & Shareware of the Year" issue page 210, #1/first entry in fact (my work is there)
PC-WELT FEB 1998 - page 84, again, my work is featured there
WINDOWS MAGAZINE, WINTER 1998 - page 92, insert section, MUST HAVE WARES, my work is again, there
PC-WELT FEB 1999 - page 83, again, my work is featured there
CHIP Magazine 7/99 - page 100, my work is there
GERMAN PC BOOK, Data Becker publisher "PC Aufrusten und Repairen" 2000, where my work is contained in it
HOT SHAREWARE Numero 46 issue, pg. 54 (PC ware mag from Spain), 2001 my work is there, first one featured, yet again!
Also, a British PC Mag in 2002 for many utilities I wrote, saw it @ BORDERS BOOKS but didn't buy it... by that point, I had moved onto other areas in this field besides coding only...
Lastly, being paid for an article that made me money over @ PCPitstop in 2008 for writing up a guide that has people showing NO VIRUSES/SPYWARES & other screwups, via following its point, such as THRONKA sees here -> http://www.xtremepccentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=ee926d913b81bf6d63c3c7372fd2a24c&t=28430&page=3
What do I have to say about that much above? I can't say it any better, than this was stated already (from the greatest book of all time, the "tech manual for life" imo):
"But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I labored more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me." - Corinthians Chapter 10, Verse 10
----
You aren't fooling anyone in that much by this point - you're doubtless another "arstechnica forums troll" who had impersonated me online, & his hosting provider removed large portions of his website because of that. He was then forced to admit he had impersonated me (& google turns up a lot of information of him stating that):
----
"Anyway the "APK" registered here is just an affectionate clone of the original. In fact I prefer him to t
A Dell eight 2.26GHz, 6GB of RAM, a 512MB video card, and a 500GB hard drive is $3,157.
How many of us really need that? To use the obligatory car analogy, Macs are like the Tesla Roadster. They may be great for what they do, but they're just not made for everybody.
the real coward i see is you because you will not print your real name. in stead you print as anonymous coward. the only one that really needs to seek help would be you. you would have to hire three hookers because the other two would not touch you. then again you may have to pay extra to the hookers for the 2 inches.
"you're as much of an idiot as the AC guy lol" - by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 14, @04:28AM (#28687813)
Do you even REALIZE how dangerous adbanners can be, nowadays especially, but also for many years now? Take a read, get informed:
----
THE NEXT ADBANNER YOU CLICK ON MAY BE A VIRUS:
http://it.slashdot.org/story/09/06/15/2056219/The-Next-Ad-You-Click-May-Be-a-Virus
----
So much for that...
SO - anything else about HOSTS files you'd care to discuss?
Because whatever you bring up, I will disprove easily (this is the part I like, keep talking - NOW, you will have to face & disprove facts I put up vs. your b.s.)
(AND, this is where my detractors ALWAYS run or get their tails handed to them... lol!)
ALSO? Well - It seems that even the "security gurus" online like Mr. Oliver Day champion the use of HOSTS files... see here:
http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/491
(Care to say he doesn't know what he's about? )
And, the day you can do ALL OF THIS on your part?
----
"My Name is Ozymandias: King of Kings - Look upon my works, ye mighty, & DESPAIR..."
Windows NT Magazine (now Windows IT Pro) pril 1997 "BACK OFFICE PERFORMANCE" issue, page 61
(&, for work done for EEC Systems/SuperSpeed.com on PAID CONTRACT (writing portions of their SuperCache program increasing its performance by up to 40% via my work) albeit, for their SuperDisk & HOW TO APPLY IT, took them to a finalist position @ MS Tech Ed, two years in a row).
WINDOWS MAGAZINE, 1997, "Top Freeware & Shareware of the Year" issue page 210, #1/first entry in fact (my work is there)
PC-WELT FEB 1998 - page 84, again, my work is featured there
WINDOWS MAGAZINE, WINTER 1998 - page 92, insert section, MUST HAVE WARES, my work is again, there
PC-WELT FEB 1999 - page 83, again, my work is featured there
CHIP Magazine 7/99 - page 100, my work is there
GERMAN PC BOOK, Data Becker publisher "PC Aufrusten und Repairen" 2000, where my work is contained in it
HOT SHAREWARE Numero 46 issue, pg. 54 (PC ware mag from Spain), 2001 my work is there, first one featured, yet again!
Also, a British PC Mag in 2002 for many utilities I wrote, saw it @ BORDERS BOOKS but didn't buy it... by that point, I had moved onto other areas in this field besides coding only...
Lastly, being paid for an article that made me money over @ PCPitstop in 2008 for writing up a guide that has people showing NO VIRUSES/SPYWARES & other screwups, via following its point, such as THRONKA sees here -> http://www.xtremepccentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=ee926d913b81bf6d63c3c7372fd2a24c&t=28430&page=3
What do I have to say about that much above? I can't say it any better, than this was stated already (from the greatest book of all time, the "tech manual for life" imo):
"But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I labored more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me." - Corinthians Chapter 10, Verse 10
----
Well - the day you can do all of that? That'll be the day you can make me "eat my words", & I will do so, + even apologize to you... but, I am fairly confident that you have not so... there you are.
(You aren't fooling anyone in that much by this point - you're doubtless another "arstechnica forums troll" who had impersonated me online, & his hosting provider removed large portions of his website because of that. He was then forced to admit he had impersonated me (& google tur
"Your complaint is about the performance of using the hosts file for something it's never meant to be used for and the resultant performance drops of reading such a large file." - by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13, @05:00AM (#28673669)
WoW... you are REALLY clueless, aren't you - are you trying to say that downloading adbanner data speeds up my system? It slows you down, and?? Adbanners have been shown to harbor malicious script in them (was "big news" here on this very website in fact, here):
----
THE NEXT ADBANNER YOU CLICK ON MAY BE A VIRUS:
http://it.slashdot.org/story/09/06/15/2056219/The-Next-Ad-You-Click-May-Be-a-Virus
----
Care to dispute the findings that even slashdot posted about? Good luck...
AND, I am NOT the only person noting you go faster online by using a custom HOSTS file (for blocking adbanners &/or hardcoding your favs into it for their URL-to-IP resolution, which also stops you from using possibly compromised DNS Servers (Dan Kaminsky did GREAT work last year & this year on that latter note by the by proving it happens via DNS poisonings etc. et al):
----
http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/491
PERTINENT QUOTE:
"The host file on my day-to-day laptop is now over 16,000 lines long. Accessing the Internet particularly browsing the Web is actually faster now." Mr. Oliver Day, SECURITYFOCUS.COM
----
So much for your blatant b.s. (try to either learn to tell the truth, or learn how HOSTS files, really work (& for the benefits of users))
APK
P.S.=> The "resultant performance drops" you said I noted, are about using 127.0.0.1, or even 0.0.0.0, vs. the smaller & F A S T E R 0 hosts file blocking IP address ONLY...
That is because when coming up from disk into memory (diskcache or DNS local cache)? You slow down using the larger/longer blocking IP addresses & you can prove that to yourself with this test -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1300193&cid=28672971
(& you can try that test, if you code you can try it yourself & see (I wish you would)) ...
NOW - with a tinier HOSTS file (such as the one sootman uses & stated so here (from mvps.org))?
Then, you don't have to stall the DNS Client Service in Windows IF you use a smaller HOSTS file...
It only happens when you use a larger (& more comprehensive one for coverage vs. KNOWN BAD SITES from sources like this one -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosts_file & reputable sources such as Spybot S&D, SRI, stopbadware.org & others of that ilk )
HOWEVER - The fact that using a larger HOSTS file like mine that covers a lot more because it is composed of data from all those sources clearly indicates that MS needs to revise the local DNS Client Cache also... it should NOT 'break down' & slow you up on larger HOSTS period. Easy to get around though, just stop the local DNS client cache is all!
Please - get a clue, but more importantly, a life... apk
yes you are the only one finding this completely ludicrous. i use a hosts file and i do not have a problem. and my hosts file is using "0" for blocking and it is doing just fine. i am also using a 654,000 entries. in conjunction with other principles for securing my computer.
Argue with the folks at rootkit.com then from the bottom of the parent posting, because their analysis of NDIS 6 firewalls tends to show that "houston, we have a problem" & houston is microsoft in this case and the fact their local dns client cache breaks down on larger hosts files is yet another indicator of poor design on Microsoft's part. The point about longer blocking ip addresses such as the loopback adapter address of 127.0.0.1 or 0.0.0.0 makes sense and the ac poster even offers a test anyone could run to test that much on initial and subsequent loads of url to ip address resolutions from it is correct and also that dns servers have been compromised in the past, per Dan Kaminsky's findings which was huge news last year, and the fact that /. even reported that adbanners house malicious script in them here http://it.slashdot.org/story/09/06/15/2056219/The-Next-Ad-You-Click-May-Be-a-Virus
Regardless of that though, Oliver Stone's article is an opinion and nothing more, it's an individual opinion, and so is yours, an individual opinion from somebody that cannot read properly. The name was Oliver Day of securityfocus.com idiot.
"You use it to filter fucking ad servers" by Xest (935314) on Monday July 13, @01:22PM (#28679117) You are not mentioning here that ad banners have been found to house malicious script in them either which only leads me to believe you are one of the people who profit by it. See this for proof of ad banners having viruses in them and why http://it.slashdot.org/story/09/06/15/2056219/The-Next-Ad-You-Click-May-Be-a-Virus because the hosting providers for the ad banners are not even checking the code in those bad ad banners and people get infected which costs them money for removal of those viruses. People should do ad banner blocking because it is their money and if they choose to they are making a good decision for themselves to stay safer on line. It is not just for added speed online but also because the gain in speed is immediately noticeable. In blocking ad banners using hosts files and noscript I have doubled my on line speed I pay for out of my pocket by doing so. You do get a lot more speed online and just by not downloading ad banner content and slow java script (the problem itself is the java script and how it can be misused by malware makers and hackers). All of your swearing is not standing up very well versus the ac apk you are ad hominem attacking and your disappearance only makes me believe that all the more. It is clear to me that you are probably part of some company who has lost their revenue stream by people blocking your ad banners where you take advantage of people that way and make money from them so you are attacking apk because of this in my opinion. ac apk is trying to help and inform people here with his post and the security guide he wrote and charges nothing for and he produced evidence of people using his guide and staying clean of viruses for years afterward. To the trash and lies you post here in bad information I say a simple No thank you. I will block your malicious ads and surf faster and safer because of not wasting the bandwidth I pay bloody money for just so you can make money off of me and infect me with your viruses on ad banners you do not even check on for having bad code in them, proved by the article here on slashdot in the url above. Good riddance to you and I am glad to see you are gone now.
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1300193&cid=28689297 you said apk ought to learn C++ there and he showed you he has done them which shows you lied. With that in mind answer my 4 questions below.
1. I would like to know if you have done anything yourself like what was done in publications and microsoft tech ed by apk, which he listed in specific publications with page numbers and dates in magazines and books in the computer sciences.
2. I would also like to know if you have done any programming professionally yourself with proof that you have degrees in computer sciences at all to your credit since you said apk should update to C++ though he already has programmed professionally in it.
3. I would also like to know if you have created guides that help secure people to the point they wrote a testimonial that they no longer get malware or viruses of the nature apk showed his guide received from thronka at xtremepccentral.com.
4. I would like to see some proof that you have a degree in computer science and that you have programmed professionally on your end after all of your inaccurate drivel you made mistakes on above.
You state apk ought to update his knowledge and he has done what you said he has not. Question is, you say what others should do, but have you done any of it yourself and more importantly, can you prove via a list of your appearing in publications in computers that you have done well at it also?
You also avoided apk's replies to you here. Why is that? Is it because he disproved each of your points in your inaccurate rant??
See my subject-line above & reply to each of my responses to you:
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1300193&cid=28690179
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1300193&cid=28674253
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1300193&cid=28688937
I would like to see you reply to my points in each of those url's above (as well seeing you disprove my points in them also) which I supplied in reply to your original reply here -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1300193&cid=28673669
APK
P.S.=> Are you avoiding each of them because they make you look poorly for stating a lot of b.s. on your part in your original reply in that last url? apk
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1300193&cid=28690179
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1300193&cid=28674253
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1300193&cid=28688937
I would like to see you reply to my points in each of those url's (as well as disprove my points in them as well) which I supplied in reply to your original reply here -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1300193&cid=28673669 with you responding to each of those postings' points from the urls above.
APK
P.S.=> Are you avoiding replying to the url's points above, because they disprove your blatant b.s. from your original reply? apk
"You use it to filter fucking ad servers who you'll only ever be contacting via HTTP so would be much better served by an HTTP specific block such as say, a browser plugin or a proxy style app" - by Xest (935314) on Monday July 13, @01:22PM (#28679117)
First of all, my guide for securing Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 contains references to that (layering those types of tools ontop of HOSTS files, for layered security), see here:
----
HOW TO SECURE Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 & even VISTA, + make it "fun-to-do", via CIS Tool Guidance (& beyond):
http://www.tcmagazine.com/forums/index.php?s=36f1cc98e45da59b7e9de03974163fe1&showtopic=2662
----
AND? HOSTS files are UNIVERSAL/GLOBAL, & browser addons/plugins are NOT. For example, some plugins (e.g.-> NoScript for MOZILLA/FireFox browsers) are ONLY for particular browsers (i.e./e.g. -> NoScript doesn't run on IE or Opera, for example)... However, HOSTS files cover ALL browers, all email programs (any program that is web-bound/internet-bound) from 1 central & easily managed location, using a text editor like notepad.exe...
WoW... AND, you are REALLY clueless, aren't you - are you trying to say that downloading adbanner data speeds up my system? It slows you down, and?? Adbanners have been shown to harbor malicious script in them (was "big news" here on this very website in fact, here):
----
THE NEXT ADBANNER YOU CLICK ON MAY BE A VIRUS:
http://it.slashdot.org/story/09/06/15/2056219/The-Next-Ad-You-Click-May-Be-a-Virus
----
Care to dispute the findings that even slashdot posted about? Good luck...
AND, I am NOT the only person noting you go faster online by using a custom HOSTS file (for blocking adbanners &/or hardcoding your favs into it for their URL-to-IP resolution, which also stops you from using possibly compromised DNS Servers (Dan Kaminsky did GREAT work last year & this year on that latter note by the by proving it happens via DNS poisonings etc. et al):
----
http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/491
PERTINENT QUOTE:
"The host file on my day-to-day laptop is now over 16,000 lines long. Accessing the Internet particularly browsing the Web is actually faster now." Mr. Oliver Day, SECURITYFOCUS.COM
----
So much for your blatant b.s. (try to either learn to tell the truth, or learn how HOSTS files, really work (& for the benefits of users))
APK
P.S.=> Let's see YOU dispute & disprove that much above, ok? apk
He refuses to reply because you disproved all of his malarky point by point. The ac that modded you down apk is clearly either this Thor Schrock character, or the arstechnica people (jeremy reimer) and as kings jowker said, you are telling a truth about this material that has certain parties living in fear of it. Especially hosts files blocking the ad banners they make a living off of others with and that infects people with viruses by using malicious script in the ad banner content that was reported here at slashdot. You did show evidence that others who are in the security realm in this science like Mr. Oliver Day of securityfocus.com even notes he surfs faster through the use of a custom hosts file and that it is useful for security purposes as well. As kingsjowker said, keep up the good work apk, despite the trolls from arstechnica and the obviously technically incompetent such as Thor Schmuck/Shrock also who try to give you a tough time here in trolling you but only fail because the sock puppet account mod up will only show others like myself after reading this that you took every false misleading point they stated and put up documented and verifiable evidences to the contrary. Especially the words of Oliver Day and those of Jeremy Reimer from arstechnica showing his own words admitting the arstechnica people have impersonated you online. What a pack of losers.
See my subject because in accusing others of it, you merely give away your own modus operandi and what you yourself do. What I think is funny here is that in your sock puppet mod up of your post you have made your post front page material. Now that apk tore apart your points, point by point, with documented evidences from reputable sources, you only attracted people like myself who read it and thought "it is obvious he modded himself up and only to his own dismay because apk took apart all the lies and misleading crap quite easily". Especially ac apk's points on hosts files, backed by Mr. Oliver Day of Securityfocus.com and also how Jeremy Reimer of arstechnica admitted to impersonating apk and how Thor Schmuck\Shrock has attempted libelling apk and is completely off base in addition to others like Mark Russinovich of microsoft and Nir Sofer of nirsoft also having their wares falsely shown as malware by many antivirus program plus apk showing from a respected trade magazine how Delphi is twice as fast as msvb and msvc++ which made you look totally technically incompetent as well. Most of all apk was successful in shutting you up because you refuse to reply to his rebuttals to your outrageous misleading garbage.
He refuses to reply because you disproved all of his malarky point by point. The ac that modded you down apk is clearly either this Thor Schrock character, or the arstechnica people (jeremy reimer) and as kings jowker said, you are telling a truth about this material that has certain parties living in fear of it. Especially hosts files blocking the ad banners they make a living off of others with and that infects people with viruses by using malicious script in the ad banner content that was reported here at slashdot. You did show evidence that others who are in the security realm in this science like Mr. Oliver Day of securityfocus.com even notes he surfs faster through the use of a custom hosts file and that it is useful for security purposes as well. As kingsjowker said, keep up the good work apk, despite the trolls from arstechnica and the obviously technically incompetent such as Thor Schmuck/Shrock also who try to give you a tough time here in trolling you but only fail because the sock puppet account mod up will only show others like myself after reading this that you took every false misleading point they stated and put up documented and verifiable evidences to the contrary. Especially the words of Oliver Day and those of Jeremy Reimer from arstechnica showing his own words admitting the arstechnica people have impersonated you online. What a pack of losers.
The true anonymous coward here is not apk. The true anonymous coward refuses to reply because apk disproved all of his malarky point by point. The ac that modded apk down is clearly either this Thor Schrock character, or the arstechnica people (jeremy reimer) and as kings jowker said, apk told some truths about this material that has certain parties living in fear of it. Especially hosts files blocking the ad banners they make a living off of others with and that infects people with viruses by using malicious script in the ad banner content that was reported here at slashdot. apk illustrated evidences from others who are in the security realm in this science like Mr. Oliver Day of securityfocus.com even notes he surfs faster through the use of a custom hosts file and that it is useful for security purposes as well. As kingsjowker said, keep up the good work apk, despite the trolls from arstechnica and the obviously technically incompetent such as Thor Schmuck/Shrock also who try to give you a tough time here in trolling you but only fail because the sock puppet account mod up will only show others like myself what the truth is here, and especially after reading this where apk took every false misleading point the true anonymous coward (not apk) stated and put up documented and verifiable evidences to the contrary. Especially the words of Oliver Day and those of Jeremy Reimer from arstechnica showing his own words admitting the arstechnica people have impersonated you online. What a pack of losers.
yes oh ok emo oh ok retard oh ok rager.. keep raging hard you little faggot troll
You know, apk, you can just go ahead and sign up for an account and use that instead of posting anonymously and creating sock-puppet accounts to "agree" with yourself.
Enough with the trollish evasions already... lol, see subject line! Your refusal to answer or disprove some of the posts I made here:
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1300193&cid=28674253
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1300193&cid=28688937
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1300193&cid=28690179
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1300193&cid=28689065
Show you do not KNOW what you're about, on any of this (I tore your "points" apart with ease & backing proof!)
You only brought it, on yourself..., & you now running from the points in my url's list above? That's the BEST part of all of this... lol, so much for your +5 INFORMATIVE RATED POST (where you can't even defend it, lol)...
(Plus, I'd quit your accusations... LOL, because, for Pete's sake - I think you're already ticking off kings jowker enough here, he was hilarious though! But hey, "it's you", just "winning friends & influencing people" lol, "with facts" (not))
Watching kingsjowker bust on you for accusing him of posting as myself & when YOU do that, AND avoid my questions also? Come on... lol! No way you got that +5 INFORMATIVE legitimately... lmao! You are just giving yourself away, more & more...
Fact is? I know of a somebody who does JUST THAT KIND OF THING ONLINE:
----
"Anyway the "APK" registered here is just an affectionate clone of the original. In fact I prefer him to the original." - Jeremy Reimer - March 25, 2005
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22OSY%22+and+%22affectionate+clone%22+and+%22Reimer%22&btnG=Search [google.com]
----
He's thought of "well" here (not) where folks here even call JEREMY REIMER a troll -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1273561&threshold=-1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&pid=28382013
For "some reason" -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1300193&cid=28678549 I wouldn't doubt you're he really, & mostly because my fav. fanclub of "internet stalkers" of myself showed up here... It's Reimer, or that fool Thor Schmuck, just on a hunch.
APK
P.S.=> What I like most about this all, is you avoiding my questions which took your "points", even the adhominem ones, clear apart... easily AND, believe it or not? Hey - I actually LIKE you have a +5 INFORMATIVE post, because that'll attract readers!
(AND, they'll see you evading the questions I asked here... prove me wrong, blow my points in the URL's above away, with technical documented or provable fact, not off topic trollery (because, after all - this IS one of the "computer techno" sections of this website, not the trolling section of this forums @ /., correct?))...
(Back to INXS' "Suicide Blonde" here...) apk
"plus, Mr. H.? Only 1 of 16 "DISTINGUISHED ENGINEERS" @ BORLAND" - by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13, @07:04AM (#28674253)
Correcting myself, that'd be MICROSOFT (instead of BORLAND, though he probably held equally prestigious honors there as well)
APK
W.T.F i will tell you the same thing that i told that jerk off that thought i was the original AC. i am not APK and any of you retards think other wise then you are the biggest bunch of idiots on this thread. by the way do you always accuse a person of being someone else when they are not that person. you need to start looking at who you are accusing because net time you do this it is going to the crime division of the F.B.I.
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1300193&cid=28701507 See subject-line and answer the questions there in the url I just posted to instead of accusing others of doing things they have not done!
(Accusing others of things like posting as others here, since you clearly do yourself (you are doing nothing but upsetting kings jowker since all you have now is your off topic b.s.)
APK
P.S.=> Trolls - they're ALL the same:
When caught with their pants down, when their "facts" are proven to be anything but, start up their "ad hominem" style attacks that go way, Way, WAY off-topic & they mod themselves up +5 INFORMATIVE via their own sock puppet accounts!
Which I am glad in this case you were -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1300193&cid=28701507 in that url in being modded up +5, because I took every one of your b.s. statements (Delphi = bad, I never used or know C/C++, & that HOSTS files slow you down (which they do ANYTHING BUT that & even others who are noted in this field state that much such as Mr. Oliver Day of securityfocus.com) & more)) & tore them apart, 1 by 1, with facts...
You're running like a scared rat now, & you do everything the typical troll always does... thanks for proving my point on this much by avoiding the points I ask you to answer which you RUN from... apk
look i do not no who you are but this is the last time i am telling you that i am not who you think i am and you keep giving these people false information. then this is going to be an all out war. with you being the losers. if you really think i am APK or his sock puppet then go look in to the title jerk off and you will see who i really am. and do not tell me you can not do that because i know you can. even if you do not want to admit it to me. by the way you still have not answered any of the questions put to you are you scared to answer, or are you scared because you know AC is right. and by the way why would not give me my password to a previous account i had with you i know why because you did not like what i said the last time we talked retards.
"You know, apk, you can just go ahead and sign up for an account and use that instead of posting anonymously and creating sock-puppet accounts to "agree" with yourself." - by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 18, @03:00AM (#28738803)
LMAO - Why don't YOU take YOUR OWN SUGGESTION then?
APK
P.S.=> The ONLY reason I don't sign on here as a "registered user" is because a registered user is ridiculously easy to track, & I don't want to make it any easier on trolls like yourself than I have to - you have to put out the effort to find my posts here, & that makes you waste your time, which is good enough for me (because the times you DO find my posts here, I just tear you up, like I did here -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1300193&cid=28701603
That is where you refuse to dispute facts I put out, vs. your "points" (b.s. ones) & that shows everyone how valid your +5 INFORMATIVE post is here -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1300193&cid=28701603 which I am GLAD you are +5 via sock puppets you use (which you accuse anyone who agrees with me of being no less, only giving away what you yourself use anyhow in doing so on your part).
(I.E.-> It isn't valid, especially now, when you cannot defend its "points" vs. the ones I put up that show you are full of it, plain & simple)... apk
The ac with no signature of any kind is ash from ashentech. He does this same thing over at techpowerup forums in harassing the moderators and others posters there and he had told me so in email and private messaging by going in there using different email accounts and logon names. Everyone is onto his method and now simply ignores him for the troll and waste of life he is who wastes time doing his trolling because he isn't literate enough to even write properly let alone disprove technical questions put his way which are beyond his 'techie' skills. Do not feed this troll. He's known for this.
"Perhaps it would be a reduction of a couple dozen CPU cycles to read a "0" rather than "127.0.0.1"," - by ericfitz (59316) on Monday July 13, @01:21AM (#28672821)
You can "mod me down" as a troll ALL you wish, but that fails QUITE badly in the point above alone... & the rest of it?
"NTFS reads blocks. If your hosts file is smaller than 1 block, it doesn't make a disk I/O difference HOW BIG each address is." - by ericfitz (59316) on Monday July 13, @01:21AM (#28672821)
Boy, you obviously SKIMMED my post - my HOSTS file is 14++mb in size, so even according to your rules? It makes a difference how many records per loop pass of the file being read get "packed into" each 4kb read/load of the local DNS cache OR even the local diskcache - the smaller the records, record by record, plus the size of the file itself being smaller using 0 vs. 127.0.0.1 or 0.0.0.0 is what MAKES IT FASTER & MORE EFFICIENT, period!
(MS has to redesign their local DNS client cache, period, also... it should NOT be 'breaking down' on larger HOSTS files, period)...
On this note? Well - my guess is, it uses a fixed size array/buffer for DNS Cache client service's data, when it ought to be using a re-dimensionable/resizeable one instead to stop folks with larger HOSTS files from having to disable the local DNS Cache client service (but, then again, the diskcache can do the same pretty much on read requests, & it loads VERY fast anyhow!)
----
"Under the covers Windows would still have to alloc a SOCKADDR so we're only talking about a difference in parsing complexity." - by ericfitz (59316) on Monday July 13, @01:21AM (#28672821)
?
That's ALL I HAVE BEEN SAYING, & that's my point, exactly... duh! lmao...
----
"Plus, the AC poster obviously isn't familiar with Windows DNSClient service. It is not actually necessary to parse LMHOSTS every time a network connection is made by name; the file is only parsed when it changes." - by ericfitz (59316) on Monday July 13, @01:21AM (#28672821)
Uhm, we're talking about the HOSTS file here (not LMHOSTS) - please, if you have dyslexia, or ADD/ADHD, or some other malady (including illiteracy)? Get "hooked on phonics" or take your treatments/meds for your problem... it's making you look really foolish with this statement!
APK
P.S.=> ericfitz, if you wouldn't have used your "ad hominem" attacks directed my way with name tossing & such? I would have been nicer about this, but... "When in Rome, do as the Romans do" & "speak in the language they understand" along with the same tones (reverse psychology is all)... apk
Look at that reaction. Somebody hit a nerve. I wouldn't doubt it's that ash from ashentech. He's known for it apparently & yes, he has also told me also that he goes over to techpowerup.com forums even & harasses others like their forums mods that way in emails or private messages at his private playpen online which nobody goes to, lol!
The internet's unfortunately full of trolls like that. Those that accomplish nothing & try to spread their misery to others, to 'drag them down to their level & beat them with experience' (what idiots are known to do).
Disprove my points here instead of doing more of your "off topic" b.s., because your +5 INFORMATIVE post isn't standing up to well to my tearing apart of each "point" (pure b.s. that shows you're clueless @ these levels in computers, basically) you made -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1300193&cid=28701603
Is your offtopic b.s. working here? Nope...
(After all - others are disagreeing with you like mad, and you only evidence your failure more by avoiding the points with known documented facts from respectable enough sources no less I used vs. your laughable b.s.!)
APK
P.S.=> Pretty pitiful, but, just judging by the reaction here, thanks for the reminder of this guy too - He begged me repeatedly to come to his forums & join for literally more than a year in fact via email, so I did - what did he end up doing? Well, once he had been disproven on many points he made on things technical, he began altering my forums signature (putting in derogatory things into it, etc. et al) & when I asked who had done it? He spoke up immediately saying he had not... funny part was, nobody else could have done it (so I left there, I don't hang around with losers like that)... apk
Oh! I get it. "the kings jokwers" is apk's angry voice! What does that make MEK_LoveBug? His nurturing side?
See my subject-line above then: Is it because you have no actual accomplishments in this field to speak of, or, is it because you have nothing left but "off topic" trollery via an AC account here? Either way, doesn't look too good for you (& small wonder others are telling you off, including myself, but I get a HUGE laugh out of watching "Mr. +5 INFORMATIVE poster" avoiding my points, & the url is below here, quit avoiding it, lol):
"But not knowing what the hell you're talking about has never stopped you in the past, why would it now?" by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 18, @01:03PM (#28741721)
Well, ok - let's put THAT, to the test!
Disprove my points here instead of doing more of your "off topic" b.s., because your +5 INFORMATIVE post isn't standing up to well to my tearing apart of each "point" (pure b.s. that shows you're clueless @ these levels in computers, basically) you 'supposedly made' -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1300193&cid=28701603
Let's see if YOU know what you're talking about, because I tore up your +5 INFORMATIVE post in each post listed... which you "strangely avoid" (not, you are wrong & the poitns there show it, vs. your b.s. "points" & via confronting each of your "points" directly)
----
"What's funny here is that you're so set sure you know who's posting. You don't" - by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 18, @01:03PM (#28741721)
Well, then, be a man & tell us who you are then? I think that's been established by now though, especially considering your reaction now to that ac's post about ashentech...
Yes, I think the ac that posted you are ash from ashentech forums might be correct!
(Ashentech's a forum nobody goes to and with good reason - the site owner has told me so, himself/verbatim, that he goes and bothers the forums mods there, regularly under assumed alternate logon guises, and when someone gets the better of him technically (honestly, the guy is @ MOST/BEST, a 2nd rate techie) he does what he did to me there, alters your signature & puts in derogatory garbage + sends you emails even though you unsubscribe from his forums, etc. et al)
Trolls - they're all the same. Weak, & they IMMEDIATELY go "off topic" once you pin them down with technical inaccuracies they make.
APK
P.S.=> If you're "proud" of harassing others under AC, then, you have to live with yourself, not I... & if you think that avoiding my rebuttals which show you in total error here is "winning"?? LOL, then, keep right on "winning", because you're clearly not doing so... apk
Your +5 INFORMATIVE post (rated up by your sock puppets) isn't standing up to well to my tearing apart of each "point" you made (lol, not - you use pure misleading trolling b.s. that shows you're clueless @ these levels in computers, basically) ->
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1300193&cid=28690179
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1300193&cid=28674253
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1300193&cid=28688937
(I would like to see you reply to my points in each of those url's (as well as disprove my points in them as well) which I supplied in reply to your original reply here -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1300193&cid=28673669 [slashdot.org] with you responding to each of those postings' points from the urls above)
That "+5 informative" rating of your post (last url) isn't doing too well, especially when you fail to defend its points (see the top 3 urls' & prove their material incorrect, & I will EAT MY WORDS, but I demand you supply valid credible backing from respected sources, such as those I used).
APK
P.S.=> So, once you do that (you never will, & I WIN because of it, easily)? I'd like you to be a man, for once, & tell us, just who you are + WHY you are attempting trolling me, & all you do is make me laugh at how you will do ANYTHING to avoid attempting "disproving" what's in those 3 url's above... thanks for the entertainment (perfect laugh for me, right after I just got done mowing the grass here, sipping a nice glass of cold ice tea & laughing @ your evasions)... apk
P.S.=> Are you avoiding replying to the url's points above, because they disprove your blatant b.s. from your original reply? apk
You know what's funny about this, apk? You're responding to the wrong guy. All I'm doing is exposing you for the sock-puppet trolling egotist that you accuse others of being.
Enjoy your grass and iced tea. I'm really enjoying watching your little game come crashing down. Sucks when people figure it out, huh? No wonder you post anonymously - you can't handle scrutiny.
You also can't handle letting this stand. Your ego won't allow it. You're going to obsess over mod scores. You're going to bluster about your VAST experience. You're going to pull up sock puppets to "support" your inane ideas. And you're going to make me chuckle as I watch you squirm under the pressure of your own hubris.
Dance, monkey, dance. As you like to say all the time - it's too easy.
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1300193&cid=28690179
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1300193&cid=28674253
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1300193&cid=28688937
You said what you said, quoted point by point there, and I am just watching you run like the troll you are. Hilarious... disprove what's in those 3 urls, vs. what you stated originally in your "+5 INFORMATIVE post" (lol, torn apart by what's in those 3 url's above from myself).
----
"You know what's funny about this, apk? You're responding to the wrong guy." - by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 18, @03:30PM (#28742811)
Well, be a man, for once, & tell us who you are then? Of course, I expect too much from "the likes of you" (troll, lmao)... still, let's say you aren't the same AC trolling me (b.s., you are)? I would like YOU to disprove the points there in the 3 url's above, ok?
----
"All I'm doing is exposing you for the sock-puppet trolling egotist that you accuse others of being." - by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 18, @03:30PM (#28742811)
I think MEK_LoveBug & kings jowker have been disagreeing with you thusfar on that statement, & though this is asking too much from you (like usual)? Got proofs of your accusations?
If so, please - prove it. Not your b.s. speculations, & "theories" (from you, the "scientist" or "psychic" (not)).
(This I have to see)
APK
P.S.=>
"As you like to say all the time - it's too easy." - by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 18, @03:30PM (#28742811)
LOL, it IS "too easy", & that little statement? Just proof, via your OWN WORDS NOW, no less, that you DO indeed "stalk me" online... boy, you really lack intelligence, don't you? Thanks for proving THAT much for everyone @ least (gee, aren't I special? I have my own "fanclub" of psycho internet stalkers... just like Mr. Dancho Danchev does here -> http://ddanchev.blogspot.com/2009/06/from-ukrainian-blackhat-seo-gang-with_09.html )... apk
you hit it on the head i am the angry voice of APK(not you dumb retarded jerk)still wrong as usual. do you not know when you are wrong or is being stupid your only gain in this war. but you would rather attack me hoping you are right about APK being me. well i have news for you I AM NOT APK. if you are in doubt ask your self this 1) why would you not send my pass code to my email address which is ja_ckd_w@hotmail.com 2) you still have not answered the real AC three points that he has been telling you. 3) why wont you post your name in here. i will tell you why because you are scared to because you know you are going to lose money from what we are accomplishing here. you are nothing but a lair and a loser in one person.
I would like to see you prove that I am kings jowker or apk. You upset kings jowker but you won't me. You act like you are on some kind of mission like a crusader but in reality you come off as a jealous little obsessed psycho. I actually think I know who you are because you used apk's phrase too easy. You are only here because apk got the best of you here on this website or elsewhere because he certainly has here now and if you are who I think you are, he did also on macos x versus windows for security here recently. You also did not fool me in your outrageous lies that the +5 informative thread that apk easily disproved point by point of yours here is not yours and all because you shot your mouth off with falsehoods which apk clearly showed as lies and mistruths. I also have to state that you should quit trying to play psychiatrist because I would like to see your license to practice that by you providing proof of you credentials to do so. I got that technique from apk whenever someone trolls him about writing which is the resort of the weak and lame troll much like your attempt at playing psychiatrist now. On apk being arrogant. He isn't and apk gets asked for proof of who he is and he answers with things he has done that you never will in an entire list of a dozen or so appearances in publications that are well known worldwide in the sciences of computing. I know I have seen him post it before but at least he can and he quotes a biblical passage in its content which talks about being humble about one's abilities. Now the truly funny part is that even if you had a list like his or one more accomplished you cannot post it for fear of retribution which is the bad side of the way you use ac accounts here to troll other people. I like apk's posts and he doesn't know who I am here but he does on other forums where we speak. I have posted in forums he belongs to where many people enjoy his postings such as this topic he brought up which no one has been able to get the better of. It is quite amusing watching him swat bugs like you because that is all you are here to do and you are a waste of life, prove me wrong on that, because you do not show anybody here any differently. You aren't able to get the best of apk, or myself, and kings jowker no matter how you try and the only people here lately that tried that were americano or ryuuteryaki and they were shut down as you said, too easy. That is around the time apk started using that phrase iirc and that is what gave you away now by this time. Your use of too easy because every time apk used that it made me laugh. We are watching you lie that the +5 informative post isn't yours, and you only say that because you aren't able to disprove apk's statements and you are not able to disprove the points he put up in 3 urls. You are clearly weak in this science as well as jealous because you tried to take on your betters and you have been spanked for it by apk. At least apk is pretty good at this science and has the street cred to show for it as well as his willingness to help others in things like his security guide. You clearly do not and all you have is your ac off topic trolling. To tell you the truth the guy is damn near infallible because I have yet to see him make a mistake online and I have been following his posts here and elsewhere for around 1 year now or so. I have yet to see him make a mistake online or have anybody get the best of him, totally conclusively, with facts that are on topic in computing which is why I like his posts. I can learn from them and make myself better at this science. By this point it is quite clear to me that You are just a jealous little troll who is nothing but a waste of life.
Somebody just put americano in his place. AC with no name (americano it is you because I saw the post where apk used too easy on you and ryuuteratsuki about macos x security versus that in windows), prove I am apk. I would like proof of it. Prove I am kings jowker. I would like proof of that too. You talk a lot of trash but you never have proof. I can prove you are a nobody because you have not done what apk has in this science and you obviously think you know more about computers than you really do judging by your evading the questions apk asks and you doing anything you can to not have to reply to the 3 points in 3 urls apk put up for you to do so. I just by watch you desperately evade apk's 3 urls that make your +5 informative post nothing but the manure it is when it came out of your trolling mouth and it is amusing watching you now lie and say it is not your post because others such as me have seen you run from where apk confronted all your mistruths point by point and it is quite satisfying to watch an anonymous troll that wasted his life trolling squirm like the snivelling rat he is in yourself, and you are. Why won't you say who you are? Is it because you are nothing and a loser?
"What I am doing is watching your game unravel here on Slashdot" - by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 18, @06:06PM (#28743831)
I'm not the one whose +5 INFORMATIVE post has been totally destroyed point by point in the 3 urls of my replies to it, listed in this post once more below for you to answer & disprove... you are.
Face it - I am on topic, because I started this very topic here in response to folks into Windows 7 so they are aware of possible issues in it that need correction, period.
Issues like:
1.) DNS cache breaking on larger HOSTS files
2.) No more faster & smaller + more efficient 0 blocking IP address in a HOSTS file
3.) The fact that both myself AND THE FOLKS @ ROOTKIT.COM have noted that the design of the WFP &/or NDIS 6 layers of the new firewall are easier to take down, period.
And, I don't evade questions, or attacks, as you clearly have - & you have the nerve to say I am "unravelling", lol?
Unbelieveable.
(No wonder you haven't accomplished anything of note in your life that you could post here: You've wasted your time on "the dark side" basically, dwelling in your own misery & trying to spread it to others who have done more than you ever will).
----
"How DARE someone show you that you might not be infallible!" - by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 18, @06:06PM (#28743831)
Thanks I guess... calling me infallible is a compliment!
Fact is, in my entire time online which is around 15 yrs. or so now, I've only had myself "gotten the better of", once, on technical issues (& that was early on, when I made a rather STUPID mistake... & was within my 1st 5 yrs. in this art & science. Never again, & it hasn't happened since).
However, I don't run from questions as you do, or evade them, or lie as you have.
(When I can't answer them to disprove them, I admit it. You clearly by comparison, do so, because you cannot stand looking the fool).
The whole "too easy" bit? With that, lol, You gave yourself away finally - I knew you would too:
I started that with Ryuuzetaeryekai (sp?) & Americano here (the latter 'disappeared in shame' lol, after I got the better of him on MacOS X security vs. Windows security) & I also think you are he as the others posters here have stated also.
----
"Like I said - wrong guy, apk. I don't have to play your little riddle-me games because I don't care about them." - by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 18, @06:06PM (#28743831)
Ahem: "BULLSHIT", lmao - you're the only AC here who doesn't even leave his initials as I have that has been attacking me. So did the AC who was "modded up +5 INFORMATIVE", which falls apart terribly vs. what is in these 3 url's in reply from myself:
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1300193&cid=28690179
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1300193&cid=28674253
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1300193&cid=28688937
You said what you said, quoted point by point there, and I am just watching you run like the troll you are. Hilarious... disprove what's in those 3 urls, vs. what you stated originally in your "+5 INFORMATIVE post" (lol, torn apart by what's in those 3 url's above from myself).
----
"Let's not get side-tracked here." - by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 18, @06:06PM (#28743831)
Then, quit going "off topic" & trying your "sidewalk psychologist" routines on me (do you have the PHD that others here asked you for (biting off MY style no less admittedly on their part) in psychiatry? Do you have a license to practice?? No to both??? Typical of you
"What I am doing is watching your game unravel here on Slashdot" - by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 18, @06:06PM (#28743831)
I'm not the one whose +5 INFORMATIVE post has been totally destroyed point by point in the 3 urls of my replies to it, listed in this post once more below for you to answer & disprove... you are.
Face it - I am on topic, because I started this very topic here in response to folks into Windows 7 so they are aware of possible issues in it that need correction, period.
Issues like:
1.) DNS cache breaking on larger HOSTS files
2.) No more faster & smaller + more efficient 0 blocking IP address in a HOSTS file
3.) The fact that both myself AND THE FOLKS @ ROOTKIT.COM have noted that the design of the WFP &/or NDIS 6 layers of the new firewall are easier to take down, period.
And, I don't evade questions, or attacks, as you clearly have - & you have the nerve to say I am "unravelling", lol?
Unbelieveable.
(No wonder you haven't accomplished anything of note in your life that you could post here: You've wasted your time on "the dark side" basically, dwelling in your own misery & trying to spread it to others who have done more than you ever will).
----
"How DARE someone show you that you might not be infallible!" - by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 18, @06:06PM (#28743831)
Thanks I guess... calling me infallible is a compliment!
Fact is, in my entire time online which is around 15 yrs. or so now, I've only had myself "gotten the better of", once, on technical issues (& that was early on, when I made a rather STUPID mistake... & was within my 1st 5 yrs. in this art & science. Never again, & it hasn't happened since).
However, I don't run from questions as you do, or evade them, or lie as you have.
(When I can't answer them to disprove them, I admit it. You clearly by comparison, do so, because you cannot stand looking the fool).
The whole "too easy" bit? With that, lol, You gave yourself away finally - I knew you would too:
I started that with Ryuuzetaeryekai (sp?) & Americano here (the latter 'disappeared in shame' lol, after I got the better of him on MacOS X security vs. Windows security) & I also think you are he as the others posters here have stated also.
----
"Like I said - wrong guy, apk. I don't have to play your little riddle-me games because I don't care about them." - by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 18, @06:06PM (#28743831)
Ahem: "BULLSHIT", lmao - you're the only AC here who doesn't even leave his initials as I have that has been attacking me. So did the AC who was "modded up +5 INFORMATIVE", which falls apart terribly vs. what is in these 3 url's in reply from myself:
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1300193&cid=28690179
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1300193&cid=28674253
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1300193&cid=28688937
You said what you said, quoted point by point there, and I am just watching you run like the troll you are. Hilarious... disprove what's in those 3 urls, vs. what you stated originally in your "+5 INFORMATIVE post" (lol, torn apart by what's in those 3 url's above from myself).
----
"Let's not get side-tracked here." - by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 18, @06:06PM (#28743831)
Then, quit going "off topic" & trying your "sidewalk psychologist" routines on me (do you have the PHD that others here asked you for (biting off MY style no less admittedly on their part) in psychiatry? Do you have a license to practice?? No to both??? Typical of you
Don't give the ac here your time & effort, thanks!
(And, you're most likely correct that it is Americano, what with his use of "Too Easy"... AND, I doubt its Ryuuterysaki (sp?) - He's a normal person, not an OCD case, & he just went on about his normal posting, & yes I actually looked... (but, not "Americano", lol, one of his many sock puppet accounts he has) he's been doing this to me for weeks now here after I got the best of him regarding MacOS X security vs. that of Windows Server 2003)...
Again - thanks!
(I can handle him easily enough)
APK
ya you know what is funny that he has the right guy. because this game you are playing with APK is backfiring on you and you do not like it. why are you posting anonymously oh! i know why because you have been burned by APK before and you can not handle it. talking about vast experience i have seen APK's education and experience first hand. i have not seen yours. now some of his ideas maybe insane, but when it come to computers i would believe APK over you any day. because all you want to do is sell false promises and bug up computers so you can make your money.
I appreciate it, but... Don't give "the ac with no signature" (Mr. +5 INFORMATIVE POST, lol, not) here your time & effort, thanks!
(And, you're most likely correct that it is Americano, what with his use of "Too Easy" (biting off MY style, no less, lol, in his doing THAT much here)... AND, I doubt its Ryuuterysaki (sp?) - He's a normal person, not an OCD case, & he just went on about his normal posting, & yes I actually looked... (but, not "Americano", lol, one of his many sock puppet accounts he has) he's been doing this to me for weeks now here after I got the best of him regarding MacOS X security vs. that of Windows Server 2003)...
Again - thanks!
(I can handle him easily enough & I know that much - as you have seen from your post material? I have before, with a relatively minor amount of effort expended only... facts are good that way, & so is the truth)
APK
P.S.=> "Americano" - "winning friends & influencing people", lol, the WRONG way (per Kings Jowker, whom I must thank for the laughs, lmao - him? I aay let him post ALL DAY LONG here, in response to 'Mr Troll the ac with no name')... apk
"It's not my +5 informative post, apk. I'm someone else" - by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 19, @01:28AM (#28745795)
Ahem: "BULLSHIT"... & you just 'stuck around', trolling me, for no good reason... right?
----
"Just another person who's seen through your ploys. Seems that there's more of us than you think." - by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 19, @01:28AM (#28745795)
"All the Kings' Horses, & ALL the King's Men, couldn't put Humpty Dumpty, together again"... Especially vs. these 3 replies of mine, vs. that "+5 INFORMATIVE" post's "points" (sock puppet modded up as it was, by your 'seems that there's more of us than you think', lol):
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1300193&cid=28690179
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1300193&cid=28674253
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1300193&cid=28688937
After all - You said what you said, quoted point by point there, and I am just watching you run like the troll you are from the concrete & verifiable data in those 3 replies that were in response to your "+5 INFORMATIVE" post...
(Hilarious...)
Just reply to each one, & disprove what's in those 3 urls, vs. what you stated originally in your "+5 INFORMATIVE post" (lol, torn apart by what's in those 3 url's above from myself).
----
"Run all your sock-puppets to agree with yourself." - by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 19, @01:28AM (#28745795)
Well - again: I'm NOT the one who refuses to disprove what I wrote in response to the "+5 INFORMATIVE POST" (modded up by YOUR sock puppets) in the 3 url's above, am I? Nope... lol, but, you CLEARLY ARE!
----
"Convince yourself that you've never been wrong (but once - what hubris - I've seen you be wrong plenty of times but your ego can't allow it)" - by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 19, @01:28AM (#28745795)
You have? SHOW US WHAT/WHERE/WHEN & HOW... ok? Proofs of that would be nice... Plus, you're using HUBRIS (which is EXACTLY what I used on Americano + RyuuzakiTetsuya along with my "TOO EASY" statement)... oh, yea - I KNOW who you are now (told you I would).
----
"And the more you post, the more proof we have. You can't help yourself. Your ego demands it. Too easy." - by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 19, @01:28AM (#28745795)
Yea, exactly: Again - With you using the terms "Hubris" &/or "Too Easy", which I constantly used vs. Americano &/or RyuuzakiTetsuya (when I spanked you BOTH in our debate over Windows Server 2003 vs. MacOS X security, where MacOS X still has a GAPING security hole in a scripting hassle that is only PARTIALLY FIXED, & Windows Server 2003, with the 1 thing it had wrong, is now fixed up for it in DirectX hassle as of 6 days agos' last Ms Patch Tuesday)...
APK
P.S.=> Told you I'd figure out WHO YOU ARE, & yes, it IS your "+5 INFORMATIVE" post, & you screwed up hugely in it, like usual... it's that, or you have to tell us WHY you refuse to disprove what I wrote in the 3 url's above, after all... & you using terms like "HUBRIS" &/or "TOO EASY"?? LOL, the exact words I used vs. "Americano" + "RyuuzakiTetsuya", many times... TOO EASY! apk
"You have yourself this wonderful kingdom of sand, apk. All bluster and nothing to show for it." - by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 19, @02:58AM (#28746117)
Well, what I have, vs your "+5 INFORMATIVE" upward modded by sock puppet accounts of yours, RyuuzakiTetsuya, or Americano, because your use of "hubris" &/or "too easy" gave you clean away? Is the 3 posts/url's below in response to its misleading falsehoods on several accounts:
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1300193&cid=28690179
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1300193&cid=28674253
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1300193&cid=28688937
("All the Kings' Horses, & ALL the King's Men, couldn't put Humpty Dumpty, together again"... Especially vs. these 3 replies of mine, vs. that "+5 INFORMATIVE" post's "points" (sock puppet modded up as it was))
After all - You said what you said, quoted point by point there, and I am just watching you run like the troll you are from the concrete & verifiable data in those 3 replies that were in response to your "+5 INFORMATIVE" post...
(Hilarious...)
Just reply to each one, & disprove what's in those 3 urls, vs. what you stated originally in your "+5 INFORMATIVE post" (lol, torn apart by what's in those 3 url's above from myself).
APK
P.S.=>
"I've looked around at your postings on this site. As soon as one of your arguments begin to fail, you trot out the sideshow (hell, sometimes the sideshow starts from post #1). Among your favorite tactics is to recite your resume as if that's proof against your critics. And that's what I'm calling out." - by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 19, @02:58AM (#28746117)
LOL, that REALLY "bothers you", & it ought to - it merely points out your OWN "inadequacies", because it bugs you so much that I have a list (I only put out a partial one no less of where I have appeared & done well in written publicaitons in this art & science of computing)... whereas, you have clearly, not!
"TOO EASY", & when people ask me, as RyuuzakiTetsuya (one of your other sock puppet accounts) said: "WHO ARE YOU?", I merely put that list out... that's all! I can, & you cannot, & that IS that... & it "bugs you", to no end.
(You're trying to make it seem as if when someone does well in something, like it's a "BAD THING"... funny, I say it's the OTHER WAY AROUND, because any properly motivated & interested individual who works hard & tries his best, could do the same...)
apk
"Your tactics can't handle scrutiny. I understand - most trolls feel that way. Too easy." - by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 19, @01:06AM (#28745709)
"All the Kings' Horses, & ALL the King's Men, couldn't put Humpty Dumpty, together again"... Especially vs. these 3 replies of mine, vs. that "+5 INFORMATIVE" post's "points" (sock puppet modded up as it was, by your 'seems that there's more of us than you think', lol):
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1300193&cid=28690179
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1300193&cid=28674253
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1300193&cid=28688937
After all - You said what you said, quoted point by point there, and I am just watching you run like the troll you are from the concrete & verifiable data in those 3 replies that were in response to your "+5 INFORMATIVE" post, that is parent post to those 3, & which you refuse to dispute those 3 points above... "TOO easy"!
Oh, I seem to handle using facts & concrete verifiable data backed by reputable sources well enough to "shut you down", & this isn't a first, now is it? Americano & RyuuzakiTetsuya used the terms "too easy" & "hubris" as you have when I knocked them both FLAT on Windows Server 2003 vs. MacOS X security recently??
Heh - that simply proves that YOU are one of those 2 is all, here trolling me, once again... (& Americano, an obvious sock puppet of yours) is probably the one I am speaking to here (w/ his trying for "revenge", lol)
(Unbelievable - take your meds! I am not the one 'trolling' anyone under an AC account & not even signing my initials, see next below, & using sock puppets to "mod up" a post as YOU have... lol! A post I easily DESTROYED in each of its points, no less, with 3 simple reply posts that had concrete, verifiable, & indisputable data in each of them, vs. a bogusly modded up by sock puppets posting as you had done... &, you refusing to reply to those 3 replies of mine? Priceless... you got "SHUT DOWN", again!)
APK
P.S.=> Once more - (the thing that "bends you up" to NO end, because you're easily tracked by myself IF I WISHED, with you usually posting as Americano &/or RyuuzakiTetsuya sock puppet registered user accounts of yours here, whereas as AC I am not easily tracked):
The ONLY reason I don't sign on here as a "registered user" is because a registered user is ridiculously easy to track, & I don't want to make it any easier on trolls like yourself than I have to - you have to put out the effort to find my posts here, & that makes you waste your time, which is good enough for me (because the times you DO find my posts here, I just tear you up, like I did here -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1300193&cid=28701603
That is where you refuse to dispute facts I put out, vs. your "points" (b.s. ones) & that shows everyone how valid your +5 INFORMATIVE post is here) -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1300193&cid=28701603 which I am GLAD you are +5 via sock puppets you use (which you accuse anyone who agrees with me of being no less, only giving away what you yourself use anyhow in doing so on your part).
(I.E.-> It isn't valid, especially now, when you cannot defend its "points" vs. the ones I put up that show you are full of it, plain & simple)... apk
"You keep holding up these 3 URLs as if they're proof of something. They're not. You want to know why I refuse to disprove what you wrote? I've told you - I don't care about them." - by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 19, @04:16PM (#28749759)
Well, you ought to: After all - They're in direct response to your words &/or "points" that were geared to "discredit me" & completely disprove your words and your outrageous b.s., so that "said & aside"?
Well... I will quote each, "A - D", next below, AND just as you stated them in your 'sock puppet modded up' post that "earned" a "+5 INFORMATIVE" score (b.s.):
----
A.) ON HOSTS FILES AND WHAT THEY CAN BE USED FOR (security and added speed online)
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1300193&cid=28690179
"Your complaint is about the performance of using the hosts file for something it's never meant to be used for and the resultant performance drops of reading such a large file." - by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13, @05:00AM (#28673669)
WoW... you are REALLY clueless, aren't you - are you trying to say that downloading adbanner data speeds up my system? It slows you down, and?? Adbanners have been shown to harbor malicious script in them (was "big news" here on this very website in fact, here):
----
THE NEXT ADBANNER YOU CLICK ON MAY BE A VIRUS:
http://it.slashdot.org/story/09/06/15/2056219/The-Next-Ad-You-Click-May-Be-a-Virus
----
Care to dispute the findings that even slashdot posted about? Good luck...
AND, I am NOT the only person noting you go faster online by using a custom HOSTS file (for blocking adbanners &/or hardcoding your favs into it for their URL-to-IP resolution, which also stops you from using possibly compromised DNS Servers (Dan Kaminsky did GREAT work last year & this year on that latter note by the by proving it happens via DNS poisonings etc. et al)):
----
http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/491 [securityfocus.com]
PERTINENT QUOTE:
"The host file on my day-to-day laptop is now over 16,000 lines long. Accessing the Internet particularly browsing the Web is actually faster now." Mr. Oliver Day, SECURITYFOCUS.COM
(HOSTS files are also used by "Spybot 'Search & Destroy'" to help secure Windows' systems vs. malware attacks as well!)
----
B.) ON BORLAND DELPHI (vs. MSVC++ &/or MSVB and HOW MUCH FASTER IT IS (& Delphi's creator CREATED .NET for MS!))
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1300193&cid=28674253
"You complain here about how people obviously aren't programmers because they disagree with you yet your language of choice is object pascal via Delphi, hardly the language of choice for an expert programmer and second only to pre-.NET Visual Basic for the horifically bad bloatware it results in." - by Anonymous Coward
on Monday July 13, @05:00AM (#28673669)
Per my subject-line above?
See VISUAL BASIC PROGRAMMER'S JOURNAL, Sept/Oct 1997 issue entitled "INSIDE THE VB5 COMPILER":
That's where Delphi, oddly considering it was a competing language trade journal for coders, absolutely KNOCKED THE SNOT out of both VB5 & MSVC++ 5 also mind you, in 7/10 tests done...
(AND, most importantly, doubling even C++ in math & strings work (which mind you? EVERY PROGRAM DOES, & strings work is crucial to HOSTS file processing) speed...)
So much for that...
Proof is always nice, but putting words into others' mouths they never stated?
Geez dude, try writing one coherent sentence, just one!
Your bullshit is unreadable.
"You keep holding up these 3 URLs as if they're proof of something. They're not. You want to know why I refuse to disprove what you wrote? I've told you - I don't care about them." - by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 19, @04:16PM (#28749759)
Well, you ought to: After all - They're in direct response to your words &/or "points" that were geared to "discredit me" & completely disprove your words and your outrageous b.s., so that "said & aside"?
Well... I will quote each, "A - D", next below, AND just as you stated them in your 'sock puppet modded up' post that "earned" a "+5 INFORMATIVE" score (b.s.):
----
A.) ON HOSTS FILES AND WHAT THEY CAN BE USED FOR (security and added speed online)
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1300193&cid=28690179
"Your complaint is about the performance of using the hosts file for something it's never meant to be used for and the resultant performance drops of reading such a large file." - by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13, @05:00AM (#28673669)
WoW... you are REALLY clueless, aren't you - are you trying to say that downloading adbanner data speeds up my system? It slows you down, and?? Adbanners have been shown to harbor malicious script in them (was "big news" here on this very website in fact, here):
----
THE NEXT ADBANNER YOU CLICK ON MAY BE A VIRUS:
http://it.slashdot.org/story/09/06/15/2056219/The-Next-Ad-You-Click-May-Be-a-Virus
----
Care to dispute the findings that even slashdot posted about? Good luck...
AND, I am NOT the only person noting you go faster online by using a custom HOSTS file (for blocking adbanners &/or hardcoding your favs into it for their URL-to-IP resolution, which also stops you from using possibly compromised DNS Servers (Dan Kaminsky did GREAT work last year & this year on that latter note by the by proving it happens via DNS poisonings etc. et al)):
----
http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/491 [securityfocus.com]
PERTINENT QUOTE:
"The host file on my day-to-day laptop is now over 16,000 lines long. Accessing the Internet particularly browsing the Web is actually faster now." Mr. Oliver Day, SECURITYFOCUS.COM
(HOSTS files are also used by "Spybot 'Search & Destroy'" to help secure Windows' systems vs. malware attacks as well!)
----
B.) ON BORLAND DELPHI (vs. MSVC++ &/or MSVB and HOW MUCH FASTER IT IS (& Delphi's creator CREATED .NET for MS!))
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1300193&cid=28674253
"You complain here about how people obviously aren't programmers because they disagree with you yet your language of choice is object pascal via Delphi, hardly the language of choice for an expert programmer and second only to pre-.NET Visual Basic for the horifically bad bloatware it results in." - by Anonymous Coward
on Monday July 13, @05:00AM (#28673669)
Per my subject-line above?
See VISUAL BASIC PROGRAMMER'S JOURNAL, Sept/Oct 1997 issue entitled "INSIDE THE VB5 COMPILER":
That's where Delphi, oddly considering it was a competing language trade journal for coders, absolutely KNOCKED THE SNOT out of both VB5 & MSVC++ 5 also mind you, in 7/10 tests done...
(AND, most importantly, doubling even C++ in math & strings work (which mind you? EVERY PROGRAM DOES, & strings work is crucial to HOSTS file processing) speed...)
So much for that...
Proof is always nice, but putting words into others' mouths they never stated?
Hehe - what's wrong apk? You have to resort to a copy-and-paste of your entire post? With no new content? Usually you mix it up a bit. Now it's down to pure spamming.
Too easy.
"You keep holding up these 3 URLs as if they're proof of something. They're not. You want to know why I refuse to disprove what you wrote? I've told you - I don't care about them." - by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 19, @04:16PM (#28749759)
Well, you ought to: After all - They're in direct response to your words &/or "points" that were geared to "discredit me" & completely disprove your words and your outrageous b.s., so that "said & aside"?
Well... I will quote each, "A - D", next below, AND just as you stated them in your 'sock puppet modded up' post that "earned" a "+5 INFORMATIVE" score (b.s.):
----
A.) ON HOSTS FILES AND WHAT THEY CAN BE USED FOR (security and added speed online)
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1300193&cid=28690179
"Your complaint is about the performance of using the hosts file for something it's never meant to be used for and the resultant performance drops of reading such a large file." - by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13, @05:00AM (#28673669)
WoW... you are REALLY clueless, aren't you - are you trying to say that downloading adbanner data speeds up my system? It slows you down, and?? Adbanners have been shown to harbor malicious script in them (was "big news" here on this very website in fact, here):
----
THE NEXT ADBANNER YOU CLICK ON MAY BE A VIRUS:
http://it.slashdot.org/story/09/06/15/2056219/The-Next-Ad-You-Click-May-Be-a-Virus
----
Care to dispute the findings that even slashdot posted about? Good luck...
AND, I am NOT the only person noting you go faster online by using a custom HOSTS file (for blocking adbanners &/or hardcoding your favs into it for their URL-to-IP resolution, which also stops you from using possibly compromised DNS Servers (Dan Kaminsky did GREAT work last year & this year on that latter note by the by proving it happens via DNS poisonings etc. et al)):
----
http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/491 [securityfocus.com]
PERTINENT QUOTE:
"The host file on my day-to-day laptop is now over 16,000 lines long. Accessing the Internet particularly browsing the Web is actually faster now." Mr. Oliver Day, SECURITYFOCUS.COM
(HOSTS files are also used by "Spybot 'Search & Destroy'" to help secure Windows' systems vs. malware attacks as well!)
I go faster, hardcoding in 250 of my favorite websites also, not doing port 53 udp queries to a possibly downed or redirected/DNS poisoned DNS server which are slower than calling them from a HOSTS file, then I block out ALL adbanners for more speed still, & then protect my system from KNOWN bad sites that bear malicious javascript code exploits etc. et al for the utmost in security protection from them (IF YOU CAN'T GET INTO THE KITCHEN YOU CAN'T GET BURNED, is why).
The way I do it, using 0 as my blocking IP address (vs. 127.0.0.1 loopback adapter, or 0.0.0.0) makes the file perform F A S T E R since there is less of it to read (ranging from 30% (0.0.0.0) - 40% (127.0.0.1) less), so the file loads faster, & is more efficient on caching (since more of it fits into each 4kb read of the cache/memory/file kernel mode subsystems @ work) + can potentially avoid the hex-to-decimal conversion that takes place when these are used by the IP stack, since 0 decimal = 0 hexadecimal... then, lastly, I place mine on a Gigabyte IRAM SSD (4gb DRAM based, fast on reads + writes & longer lasting than FLASH solutions) onto an NTFS compressed 4kb/allocation unit-cluster formatted disk (to match the memory/caching/filesystem readsize too), so the file is smaller still & reads up @ a 134mb/sec rate on this SSD, & access @ 0.1 ms
"You want to know why I refuse to disprove what you wrote? I've told you - I don't care about them." - by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 19, @04:16PM (#28749759)
Well, you ought to: After all - They're in direct response to your words &/or "points" that were geared to "discredit me" & completely disprove your words and your outrageous b.s., so that "said & aside"?
Well... I will quote each, "A - D", next below, AND just as you stated them in your 'sock puppet modded up' post that "earned" a "+5 INFORMATIVE" score (b.s.):
----
A.) ON HOSTS FILES AND WHAT THEY CAN BE USED FOR (security and added speed online)
"Your complaint is about the performance of using the hosts file for something it's never meant to be used for and the resultant performance drops of reading such a large file." - by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13, @05:00AM (#28673669)
WoW... you are REALLY clueless, aren't you - are you trying to say that downloading adbanner data speeds up my system? It slows you down, and?? Adbanners have been shown to harbor malicious script in them (was "big news" here on this very website in fact, here):
----
THE NEXT ADBANNER YOU CLICK ON MAY BE A VIRUS:
http://it.slashdot.org/story/09/06/15/2056219/The-Next-Ad-You-Click-May-Be-a-Virus
----
Care to dispute the findings that even slashdot posted about? Good luck...
AND, I am NOT the only person noting you go faster online by using a custom HOSTS file (for blocking adbanners &/or hardcoding your favs into it for their URL-to-IP resolution, which also stops you from using possibly compromised DNS Servers (Dan Kaminsky did GREAT work last year & this year on that latter note by the by proving it happens via DNS poisonings etc. et al)):
----
http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/491
PERTINENT QUOTE:
"The host file on my day-to-day laptop is now over 16,000 lines long. Accessing the Internet particularly browsing the Web is actually faster now." Mr. Oliver Day, SECURITYFOCUS.COM
(HOSTS files are also used by "Spybot 'Search & Destroy'" to help secure Windows' systems vs. malware attacks as well!)
I go faster, hardcoding in 250 of my favorite websites also, not doing port 53 udp queries to a possibly downed or redirected/DNS poisoned DNS server which are slower than calling them from a HOSTS file, then I block out ALL adbanners for more speed still, & then protect my system from KNOWN bad sites that bear malicious javascript code exploits etc. et al for the utmost in security protection from them (IF YOU CAN'T GET INTO THE KITCHEN YOU CAN'T GET BURNED, is why).
The way I do it, using 0 as my blocking IP address (vs. 127.0.0.1 loopback adapter, or 0.0.0.0) makes the file perform F A S T E R since there is less of it to read (ranging from 30% (0.0.0.0) - 40% (127.0.0.1) less), so the file loads faster, & is more efficient on caching (since more of it fits into each 4kb read of the cache/memory/file kernel mode subsystems @ work) + can potentially avoid the hex-to-decimal conversion that takes place when these are used by the IP stack, since 0 decimal = 0 hexadecimal... then, lastly, I place mine on a Gigabyte IRAM SSD (4gb DRAM based, fast on reads + writes & longer lasting than FLASH solutions) via altering the DataBasePath Parameter here -> HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\Tcpip\Parameters, putting my HOSTS file onto an NTFS compressed 4kb/allocation unit-cluster formatted disk (to match the memory/caching/filesystem readsize too), so the file is smaller still & reads up @ a 134mb/sec rate on this SSD, & access @ 0.1 ms + 3% CPU usage (SSD), only...
----
B.) ON BORLAND DELPHI (vs. MSVC++ &/or MSVB and HOW MU
Face the music, apk. You've lost. All you can do is copy-and-paste your posts. It just shows how you operate. Too easy.
"You want to know why I refuse to disprove what you wrote? I've told you - I don't care about them." - by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 19, @04:16PM (#28749759)
Well, you ought to: After all - They're in direct response to your words &/or "points" that were geared to "discredit me" & completely disprove your words and your outrageous b.s., so that "said & aside"?
Well... I will quote each, "A - D", next below, AND just as you stated them in your 'sock puppet modded up' post that "earned" a "+5 INFORMATIVE" score (b.s.):
----
A.) ON HOSTS FILES AND WHAT THEY CAN BE USED FOR (security and added speed online)
"Your complaint is about the performance of using the hosts file for something it's never meant to be used for and the resultant performance drops of reading such a large file." - by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13, @05:00AM (#28673669)
WoW... you are REALLY clueless, aren't you - are you trying to say that downloading adbanner data speeds up my system? It slows you down, and?? Adbanners have been shown to harbor malicious script in them (was "big news" here on this very website in fact, here):
----
THE NEXT ADBANNER YOU CLICK ON MAY BE A VIRUS:
http://it.slashdot.org/story/09/06/15/2056219/The-Next-Ad-You-Click-May-Be-a-Virus
----
Care to dispute the findings that even slashdot posted about? Good luck...
AND, I am NOT the only person noting you go faster online by using a custom HOSTS file (for blocking adbanners &/or hardcoding your favs into it for their URL-to-IP resolution, which also stops you from using possibly compromised DNS Servers (Dan Kaminsky did GREAT work last year & this year on that latter note by the by proving it happens via DNS poisonings etc. et al)):
----
http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/491
PERTINENT QUOTE:
"The host file on my day-to-day laptop is now over 16,000 lines long. Accessing the Internet particularly browsing the Web is actually faster now." Mr. Oliver Day, SECURITYFOCUS.COM
(HOSTS files are also used by "Spybot 'Search & Destroy'" to help secure Windows' systems vs. malware attacks as well!)
I go faster, hardcoding in 250 of my favorite websites also, not doing port 53 udp queries to a possibly downed or redirected/DNS poisoned DNS server which are slower than calling them from a HOSTS file, then I block out ALL adbanners for more speed still, & then protect my system from KNOWN bad sites that bear malicious javascript code exploits etc. et al for the utmost in security protection from them (IF YOU CAN'T GET INTO THE KITCHEN YOU CAN'T GET BURNED, is why).
The way I do it, using 0 as my blocking IP address (vs. 127.0.0.1 loopback adapter, or 0.0.0.0) makes the file perform F A S T E R since there is less of it to read (ranging from 30% (0.0.0.0) - 40% (127.0.0.1) less), so the file loads faster, & is more efficient on caching (since more of it fits into each 4kb read of the cache/memory/file kernel mode subsystems @ work) + can potentially avoid the hex-to-decimal conversion that takes place when these are used by the IP stack, since 0 decimal = 0 hexadecimal... then, lastly, I place mine on a Gigabyte IRAM SSD (4gb DRAM based, fast on reads + writes & longer lasting than FLASH solutions) via altering the DataBasePath Parameter here -> HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\Tcpip\Parameters, putting my HOSTS file onto an NTFS compressed 4kb/allocation unit-cluster formatted disk (to match the memory/caching/filesystem readsize too), so the file is smaller still & reads up @ a 134mb/sec rate on this SSD, & access @ 0.1 ms + 3% CPU usage (SSD), only...
----
B.) ON BORLAND DELPHI (vs. MSVC++ &/or MSVB and HOW MU
Face the music, apk. You've lost. All you can do is copy-and-paste your posts. It just shows how you operate. Too easy.
"You want to know why I refuse to disprove what you wrote? I've told you - I don't care about them." - by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 19, @04:16PM (#28749759)
Well, you ought to: After all - They're in direct response to your words &/or "points" that were geared to "discredit me" & completely disprove your words and your outrageous b.s., so that "said & aside"?
Well... I will quote each, "A - D", next below, AND just as you stated them in your 'sock puppet modded up' post that "earned" a "+5 INFORMATIVE" score (b.s.):
----
A.) ON HOSTS FILES AND WHAT THEY CAN BE USED FOR (security and added speed online)
"Your complaint is about the performance of using the hosts file for something it's never meant to be used for and the resultant performance drops of reading such a large file." - by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13, @05:00AM (#28673669)
WoW... you are REALLY clueless, aren't you - are you trying to say that downloading adbanner data speeds up my system? It slows you down, and?? Adbanners have been shown to harbor malicious script in them (was "big news" here on this very website in fact, here):
----
THE NEXT ADBANNER YOU CLICK ON MAY BE A VIRUS:
http://it.slashdot.org/story/09/06/15/2056219/The-Next-Ad-You-Click-May-Be-a-Virus
----
Care to dispute the findings that even slashdot posted about? Good luck...
AND, I am NOT the only person noting you go faster online by using a custom HOSTS file (for blocking adbanners &/or hardcoding your favs into it for their URL-to-IP resolution, which also stops you from using possibly compromised DNS Servers (Dan Kaminsky did GREAT work last year & this year on that latter note by the by proving it happens via DNS poisonings etc. et al)):
----
http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/491
PERTINENT QUOTE:
"The host file on my day-to-day laptop is now over 16,000 lines long. Accessing the Internet particularly browsing the Web is actually faster now." Mr. Oliver Day, SECURITYFOCUS.COM
(HOSTS files are also used by "Spybot 'Search & Destroy'" to help secure Windows' systems vs. malware attacks as well!)
I go faster, hardcoding in 250 of my favorite websites also, not doing port 53 udp queries to a possibly downed or redirected/DNS poisoned DNS server which are slower than calling them from a HOSTS file, then I block out ALL adbanners for more speed still, & then protect my system from KNOWN bad sites that bear malicious javascript code exploits etc. et al for the utmost in security protection from them (IF YOU CAN'T GET INTO THE KITCHEN YOU CAN'T GET BURNED, is why).
The way I do it, using 0 as my blocking IP address (vs. 127.0.0.1 loopback adapter, or 0.0.0.0) makes the file perform F A S T E R since there is less of it to read (ranging from 30% (0.0.0.0) - 40% (127.0.0.1) less), so the file loads faster, & is more efficient on caching (since more of it fits into each 4kb read of the cache/memory/file kernel mode subsystems @ work) + can potentially avoid the hex-to-decimal conversion that takes place when these are used by the IP stack, since 0 decimal = 0 hexadecimal... then, lastly, I place mine on a Gigabyte IRAM SSD (4gb DRAM based, fast on reads + writes & longer lasting than FLASH solutions) via altering the DataBasePath Parameter here -> HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\Tcpip\Parameters, putting my HOSTS file onto an NTFS compressed 4kb/allocation unit-cluster formatted disk (to match the memory/caching/filesystem readsize too), so the file is smaller still & reads up @ a 134mb/sec rate on this SSD, & access @ 0.1 ms + 3% CPU usage (SSD), only...
AND?
Other /.'ers are noting the advantage of HO