I dont want the ISP blocking anything for me as they will take this liberty as license to block other things they are not supposed to block. check with all those people whose isps stop them from running a mail server cos they dont want them to become spam agents
I wouldn't be happy if my ISP blocked port 25. But how many unconfigured windows boxes run a mail server by default?
The point I was attempting to put across with my previous post was that ISPs should be blocking ports that are open *and* vulnerable on bog standard windows installs - ports that should never be open in the first place - I don't blame the ISPs, at the end of the day MS have to take the wrap for releasing such buggy software, but the ISPs could make the internet a better place by blocking ports that just should not be visible. - Users are stupid^h^h^h^h^h^h uneducated. As long as they can browse the web and email their friends, they don't give a crap about what effect their infested systems are doing.
Not that I totally disagree with you in this instance, but one could also say, "why the HELL do users allow these packets from the internet, as they are a LAN service only, is beyond me". I'd rather have the freedom to decide what I can do with my connection than have someone else "secure" it for me.
As a/. user that a fair comment, but what about the other 99.9% of internet users who don't read/.? They don't have the faintest idea that their Netbios/RPC ports are wide open, but wouldn't it be better for us 0.1% of people if ISP's did block such traffic for everybody?
If all ISP's blocked RPC & Netbios (to name a few), what effect would this have on you?
None or very little
Now think of the advantages that this could have for the other 99.9% of internet users?
Oooh, blaster and welchia would have gone unnoticed.
Now think of the advantages that blocking ports of the 99.9% of the internet users would have on us 0.1% of internet users?
Well they wouldn't have worms on their systems flooding our networks masses of ICMP traffic
Do you still think it's a bad idea for ISP's to be blocking traffic on ports that are deemed as LAN services?
Try saying that when you are an admin of a large (2000+) windows network, and 'expert' users decide to install a personal firewall on their computers.
You wouldn't believe the number of calls I receive where users tell me that email/web isn't working or 'I can't logon', the standard reply is, "Running a personal firewall?... Thought so, can you uninstall it?... What it's working now?... Bye!"
I've even had users telling me that windows update was broken, when in fact it was their firewall stopping it working. A software firewall is a poor excuse for keeping a system upto date. Would welchia/blaster have been a problem if users had patched their systems on time? No!
I'm not saying don't use a personal firewall, when used at home and configured correctly, the can be effective - but if you are on a corporate/academic network, check with your systems admin before you do this.
You know, when I saw in the article that AOL was automatically turning off users' Messenger Service, I wondered if that was stepping over the line. After all, we Slashdotters *hate* it when someone messes with our configuration without our permission!
In reality, if the messenger service is enabled, it would be fair to say it was unconfigured
The next service pack for Windows XP will disable the messenger service by default. IMHO they should disable many more of those un-needed services also.
Pop up ads? Not heard of that - oh wait, that's an IE 'feature' isn't it?
Until recently, I've deliberately never blocked any ads on slashdot because they have never got in the way. But now that TPTB have decided to put ads where I normally see slashboxes, I'm afraid the ads had to go.
I glad to see more and more ads are now created with flash. Suits me fine - I don't do flash.
Just how will the DRM crud in longhorn prevent me from playing my MP3 collection stored on CD-R and DVD-R in a third party application that doesn't support DRM? I can't see DRM hooking into the OS like anti virus software, scanning every access to every file and blocking access to files it thinks *might* be dodgy.
If they manage to pull that off, I'll eat my hat (and kick my windows box into touch)
I assume that you are the AC who posted both of the AC comments in this thread? (Registration is free and easy don't you know?)
Now I'm all for offering financial support to a project, but let's be realistic. Who is going to contribute to a project when they have a dislike for part of the project?
When I do coding, I'm happy to receive negative feedback about my product. This allows me to improve my product. - If more people like my product then more people will contribute to my project.
Feedback (especially negative) is IMHO the most important contribution somebody can make to a project.
Now go register yourself a slashdot account and stop AC trolling.
But if you actually bothered to read the part of my post that you actually quoted me on, then you would know that mozilla currently saves it's bookmarks and profile under %userprofile%, so why should saving this in the 'correct' place under %userprofile% not work?
For info: %userprofile% works on all currently supported windows platforms.
Incidentally, you could just as well say that it's annoying IE doesn't use bookmarks.html, since netscape's bookmarks.html standard predates the very existance of the IE browser. MS just thought "oh, we're just going to do it different, not for any good reason", and that led to the mess we're in today.
I'm not a MS lover, infact if you've read my other posts in this thread you would realise that I totally love Firebird and I do my bit to push it on as many users as possible.
But regarding your comment... When was their an RFC relating to how bookmarks are stored? Maybe Netscape were the first. Remember that steam engines came before petrol engines, but that doesn't make steam better.
IMHO, Microsoft have a much better approach. Why don't you try deploying mozilla to a large windows network so that bookmarks follow users from computer to computer, then comment on which method is best? - I do hear what you are saying, but if the mozilla team are dedicated on branding and making the browser feel like part of the OS, they are going the wrong way about it with the bookmark (and profile) system they use on the windows platform.
There just isn't a practical way for mozilla to use IE's bookmarks if you consider how many profiles mozilla is run on that DON'T have IE.
What is the difficulty in making mozilla look here %userprofile%\Favorites for bookmarks instead of here %userprofile%\application data\Phoenix\Profiles\Default\(random).slt\bookmar ks.html
It doesn't matter how many users use IE or Mozilla on a system. If mozilla gets it bookmarks from %userprofile%\favorites, it will quite simply, "Just work"
I understand that Firebird/Mozilla use a single file for all the bookmarks - some users prefer this, that is all well and good, however if you run multiple systems, it makes far more sense to have 1 file per bookmark. Not only can you organise your favorites using the shell/file manager, but you can easily merge all your bookmarks and sync between multiple systems without having to worry about overwritting and losing previously stored bookmarks on the other system.
I love Mozilla, I hate it's bookmarking/Profile system. It's hard work deploying Firebird to a large windows network because of the way it stores profiles and bookmarks.
The imported favorites are a copy of your IE favorites, copied into your Mozilla profile. If you add new favorites with IE after importing, Mozilla doesn't know about them. New bookmarks added from Mozilla don't show up in IE either.
You've hit the nail on the head!
I've been using Mozilla Firebird (Phoenix as it was known back then) since the day I saw it announced on slashdot. The 0.1 release became my default browser within minutes of installing it.
If the Mozilla team are as dedicated as they sound about making the browser feel like part of the host OS, then hopefully they will address this problem. Windows has a directory for favorites that is integrated into the shell. You click on the start menu, favourites is listed. Why can't mozilla make use of this facility? This is my #1 gripe with the browser.
I've deployed Firebird to all the public access computers at the university I'm a sys admin at - it wasn't requested, I did it because I love Firebird so much that I wan't others to see it, use it, love it and install it on their own computers. But I suspect that students simply won't use it, because with IE, we can redirect the favorites folder to a network location so that favorites follow the users to which ever machine they decide to log on to, thanks to a simple group policy setting. Does this work in mozilla? Not the way the bookmarks work at the moment.
And why does Firebird (and Mozilla) create a profile within a profile? What is the point of that? I've not found a way for a single user to create multiple profiles for themeselves, the Firebird team may not realise but this really makes deploying Firebird to large (windows) networks a very time consuming and difficult process.
Favorites go here "%userprofile%\favorites" User config goes here "HKEY_CURRENT_USER" User setting overridden by global settings found in here "HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE"
This is the way applications should work under windows OS's. Dear Firebird team, please fix this.
Fair enough, but judging by past experience, it will take a matter of days/weeks for cheats to surface no matter what state the final software is realeased in.
It's frickin annoying for those of use who are only interested in playing the single player mission - It's like we are being punished for Valves own incompetance. Why can't they release a fix 4 months later to stop cheats rather than delay the launch by 4 months? They are guaranteed to release a patch within the first six months no matter what the release date is.
I like many others have pre-ordered half-life2, but I'm seriously considering cancelling my order.
If they can't grasp basic security proceedures, they don't deserve to be successful.
I love to know why a source code leak cost them four months? I could understand it if they lost a portion of the code.
I'm pretty sure it's a false positive as the machine is patched, firewalled, and the file was found in the offline file cache (I've seen a few false positives in that directory).
For a minute or two I though the worm we are all expecting RSN, had been released.
When I first read this I assumed it was talking about football, as in the version known by everyone outside of the U.S. - I'm still waiting for EA to realease a version of FIFA in first person perspective.
As a non ps2 owning F1 fan, this is terrible news. The previous games released by EA have been superb on all platforms. I'm certainly not going to purchase a ps2 just for this game, in fact I doubt I will ever buy one now.
Slashdot Mirror
Funny? Really? Well, it's the closest moderation option to sarcasm I suppose.
Okay, Funny it is.
RTFA
That would simply be called, "A Processor"
I dont want the ISP blocking anything for me as they will take this liberty as license to block other things they are not supposed to block. check with all those people whose isps stop them from running a mail server cos they dont want them to become spam agents
I wouldn't be happy if my ISP blocked port 25. But how many unconfigured windows boxes run a mail server by default?
The point I was attempting to put across with my previous post was that ISPs should be blocking ports that are open *and* vulnerable on bog standard windows installs - ports that should never be open in the first place - I don't blame the ISPs, at the end of the day MS have to take the wrap for releasing such buggy software, but the ISPs could make the internet a better place by blocking ports that just should not be visible. - Users are stupid^h^h^h^h^h^h uneducated. As long as they can browse the web and email their friends, they don't give a crap about what effect their infested systems are doing.
Not that I totally disagree with you in this instance, but one could also say, "why the HELL do users allow these packets from the internet, as they are a LAN service only, is beyond me". I'd rather have the freedom to decide what I can do with my connection than have someone else "secure" it for me.
/. user that a fair comment, but what about the other 99.9% of internet users who don't read /.? They don't have the faintest idea that their Netbios/RPC ports are wide open, but wouldn't it be better for us 0.1% of people if ISP's did block such traffic for everybody?
As a
If all ISP's blocked RPC & Netbios (to name a few), what effect would this have on you?
None or very little
Now think of the advantages that this could have for the other 99.9% of internet users?
Oooh, blaster and welchia would have gone unnoticed.
Now think of the advantages that blocking ports of the 99.9% of the internet users would have on us 0.1% of internet users?
Well they wouldn't have worms on their systems flooding our networks masses of ICMP traffic
Do you still think it's a bad idea for ISP's to be blocking traffic on ports that are deemed as LAN services?
A firewall is a MUST when running windows
Try saying that when you are an admin of a large (2000+) windows network, and 'expert' users decide to install a personal firewall on their computers.
You wouldn't believe the number of calls I receive where users tell me that email/web isn't working or 'I can't logon', the standard reply is, "Running a personal firewall?... Thought so, can you uninstall it?... What it's working now?... Bye!"
I've even had users telling me that windows update was broken, when in fact it was their firewall stopping it working. A software firewall is a poor excuse for keeping a system upto date. Would welchia/blaster have been a problem if users had patched their systems on time? No!
I'm not saying don't use a personal firewall, when used at home and configured correctly, the can be effective - but if you are on a corporate/academic network, check with your systems admin before you do this.
You know, when I saw in the article that AOL was automatically turning off users' Messenger Service, I wondered if that was stepping over the line. After all, we Slashdotters *hate* it when someone messes with our configuration without our permission!
In reality, if the messenger service is enabled, it would be fair to say it was unconfigured
The next service pack for Windows XP will disable the messenger service by default. IMHO they should disable many more of those un-needed services also.
Pop up ads? Not heard of that - oh wait, that's an IE 'feature' isn't it?
Until recently, I've deliberately never blocked any ads on slashdot because they have never got in the way. But now that TPTB have decided to put ads where I normally see slashboxes, I'm afraid the ads had to go.
I glad to see more and more ads are now created with flash. Suits me fine - I don't do flash.
Funny that I should see this at the top of the /. page, just after reading your message.
Just how will the DRM crud in longhorn prevent me from playing my MP3 collection stored on CD-R and DVD-R in a third party application that doesn't support DRM? I can't see DRM hooking into the OS like anti virus software, scanning every access to every file and blocking access to files it thinks *might* be dodgy.
If they manage to pull that off, I'll eat my hat (and kick my windows box into touch)
I thought Microsoft assumed all customers wanted DRM (which is why it's going to feature so much in Longhorn!)
Microsoft can put as much DRM into their new OS and media player as they like.
I shall continue using foobar2000 to play all my audio.
3. Blue screen of death in audio form?
Have you been listening to the 'top 10' too?
That's about as likely as it running a Linux kernel.
then you must add these obligitory steps:
6. ????
7. Profit
I assume that you are the AC who posted both of the AC comments in this thread? (Registration is free and easy don't you know?)
Now I'm all for offering financial support to a project, but let's be realistic. Who is going to contribute to a project when they have a dislike for part of the project?
When I do coding, I'm happy to receive negative feedback about my product. This allows me to improve my product. - If more people like my product then more people will contribute to my project.
Feedback (especially negative) is IMHO the most important contribution somebody can make to a project.
Now go register yourself a slashdot account and stop AC trolling.
But if you actually bothered to read the part of my post that you actually quoted me on, then you would know that mozilla currently saves it's bookmarks and profile under %userprofile%, so why should saving this in the 'correct' place under %userprofile% not work?
For info: %userprofile% works on all currently supported windows platforms.
Incidentally, you could just as well say that it's annoying IE doesn't use bookmarks.html, since netscape's bookmarks.html standard predates the very existance of the IE browser. MS just thought "oh, we're just going to do it different, not for any good reason", and that led to the mess we're in today.
I'm not a MS lover, infact if you've read my other posts in this thread you would realise that I totally love Firebird and I do my bit to push it on as many users as possible.
But regarding your comment... When was their an RFC relating to how bookmarks are stored? Maybe Netscape were the first. Remember that steam engines came before petrol engines, but that doesn't make steam better.
IMHO, Microsoft have a much better approach. Why don't you try deploying mozilla to a large windows network so that bookmarks follow users from computer to computer, then comment on which method is best? - I do hear what you are saying, but if the mozilla team are dedicated on branding and making the browser feel like part of the OS, they are going the wrong way about it with the bookmark (and profile) system they use on the windows platform.
There just isn't a practical way for mozilla to use IE's bookmarks if you consider how many profiles mozilla is run on that DON'T have IE.
r ks.html
What is the difficulty in making mozilla look here %userprofile%\Favorites for bookmarks instead of here %userprofile%\application data\Phoenix\Profiles\Default\(random).slt\bookma
It doesn't matter how many users use IE or Mozilla on a system. If mozilla gets it bookmarks from %userprofile%\favorites, it will quite simply, "Just work"
I understand that Firebird/Mozilla use a single file for all the bookmarks - some users prefer this, that is all well and good, however if you run multiple systems, it makes far more sense to have 1 file per bookmark. Not only can you organise your favorites using the shell/file manager, but you can easily merge all your bookmarks and sync between multiple systems without having to worry about overwritting and losing previously stored bookmarks on the other system.
I love Mozilla, I hate it's bookmarking/Profile system. It's hard work deploying Firebird to a large windows network because of the way it stores profiles and bookmarks.
The imported favorites are a copy of your IE favorites, copied into your Mozilla profile. If you add new favorites with IE after importing, Mozilla doesn't know about them. New bookmarks added from Mozilla don't show up in IE either.
You've hit the nail on the head!
I've been using Mozilla Firebird (Phoenix as it was known back then) since the day I saw it announced on slashdot. The 0.1 release became my default browser within minutes of installing it.
If the Mozilla team are as dedicated as they sound about making the browser feel like part of the host OS, then hopefully they will address this problem. Windows has a directory for favorites that is integrated into the shell. You click on the start menu, favourites is listed. Why can't mozilla make use of this facility? This is my #1 gripe with the browser.
I've deployed Firebird to all the public access computers at the university I'm a sys admin at - it wasn't requested, I did it because I love Firebird so much that I wan't others to see it, use it, love it and install it on their own computers. But I suspect that students simply won't use it, because with IE, we can redirect the favorites folder to a network location so that favorites follow the users to which ever machine they decide to log on to, thanks to a simple group policy setting. Does this work in mozilla? Not the way the bookmarks work at the moment.
And why does Firebird (and Mozilla) create a profile within a profile? What is the point of that? I've not found a way for a single user to create multiple profiles for themeselves, the Firebird team may not realise but this really makes deploying Firebird to large (windows) networks a very time consuming and difficult process.
Favorites go here "%userprofile%\favorites"
User config goes here "HKEY_CURRENT_USER"
User setting overridden by global settings found in here "HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE"
This is the way applications should work under windows OS's. Dear Firebird team, please fix this.
Was that supposed to crash Mozilla? Id didn't do squat with MozillaFirebird 0.6.1.
It crashed my Mozilla Firebird 0.6.1
Fair enough, but judging by past experience, it will take a matter of days/weeks for cheats to surface no matter what state the final software is realeased in.
It's frickin annoying for those of use who are only interested in playing the single player mission - It's like we are being punished for Valves own incompetance. Why can't they release a fix 4 months later to stop cheats rather than delay the launch by 4 months? They are guaranteed to release a patch within the first six months no matter what the release date is.
I know that Valve aren't the greatest where security is concerned, But if you ask me, it serves them right for having such insecure systems.
I like many others have pre-ordered half-life2, but I'm seriously considering cancelling my order. If they can't grasp basic security proceedures, they don't deserve to be successful.
I love to know why a source code leak cost them four months? I could understand it if they lost a portion of the code.
Bloodhound.Exploit.1
Which according to Symantec is "likely to be a new worm or Trojan that makes use of the DCOM RPC vulnerability.".
I'm pretty sure it's a false positive as the machine is patched, firewalled, and the file was found in the offline file cache (I've seen a few false positives in that directory).
For a minute or two I though the worm we are all expecting RSN, had been released.
When I first read this I assumed it was talking about football, as in the version known by everyone outside of the U.S. - I'm still waiting for EA to realease a version of FIFA in first person perspective.
As a non ps2 owning F1 fan, this is terrible news. The previous games released by EA have been superb on all platforms. I'm certainly not going to purchase a ps2 just for this game, in fact I doubt I will ever buy one now.
An 802.11b version inserted into a live fly.