I agree totally, it's getting to the point where private ownership amongst normals is more like just leasing the stuff from the company, the next version might require you to replace it if you break it
let me guess, you voted for bush right? mind being a little verbose on your point of view? I'll try to respond, but maybe your future replies should include exactly WHAT the counter point is besides "you're wrong, you're so wrong mr. man"
It is an advantage to Microsoft Inc, that was my point, if you want to say I was saying something else then go ahead.
like I said your response is a little lacking in content for my to refute (again that's a bushism) so I don't know where to go with this
well I'm not sure what he's getting at, but you could try adding a route to the routing table saying to direct all traffic with the given destination to the local loopback, no CHANGE'ing of the default route is required, more specific routes, like naming the IP outright are preferred:
route ADD 207.46.225.221 GATEWAY 127.0.0.1 METRIC 1
correct, which means the goal should be to stop them from gaining those priv's, which microsoft has not done anything about really. Maybe vista (haven't "beta tested" aka DLed it) will provide for some "system maintainer" that can't login interactively or over network by default, that's what I end up setting my local security on win2k as anyways...who knows...
what's your point? There's a commercial version, that's what I'm talking about. if they develop anything along those lines it should be free for all windows users without commercial intent beyond value-adding. anything beyond that is a conflict
well yes but there are a whole host of legit reasons admin's might write to the hosts file, or for apps to do that. The point to MS (at least publicly) is apparently that there are some sites which never should be remapped in HOSTS, and since they can't make exceptions for a million different TLD's, slowing everything down even more, only the "most important ones" get to be made exceptions, and it's just a really weird coincidence that they're all microsoft sites, none fo the competition are given this protection.
you're aware of what DNS does? what if their IP address has to change, do they have to update all their software to point to it? also, what the jist of the thread seems to be is that end-users at home will buy MS anti-spyware rather than trying to figure out why they can't get elsewhere.
I agree totally, only core sites should be listed, those required to fix the malware, but I think what the author's point was, was that you only seee this advantage if you're using MS anti-spyware (which , because of stuff like this, I've always was an ethical contradiction) listing the top 10 (popularity-wise) or so anti-spyware/adware sites would be more useful, since the supposed advantage is to sort of bootstrap the system from a state of mass-infection
like I said, I've always had a problem with the conflict of interest created by a company making money off of a product that essientially just compensates for the failure in one of its other products....
Slashdot Mirror
I agree totally, it's getting to the point where private ownership amongst normals is more like just leasing the stuff from the company, the next version might require you to replace it if you break it
which part? again you've fail to mention any sort of point, I'm inclined to believe you don't know what you're talking about...
let me guess, you voted for bush right? mind being a little verbose on your point of view? I'll try to respond, but maybe your future replies should include exactly WHAT the counter point is besides "you're wrong, you're so wrong mr. man" It is an advantage to Microsoft Inc, that was my point, if you want to say I was saying something else then go ahead. like I said your response is a little lacking in content for my to refute (again that's a bushism) so I don't know where to go with this
well I'm not sure what he's getting at, but you could try adding a route to the routing table saying to direct all traffic with the given destination to the local loopback, no CHANGE'ing of the default route is required, more specific routes, like naming the IP outright are preferred: route ADD 207.46.225.221 GATEWAY 127.0.0.1 METRIC 1
correct, which means the goal should be to stop them from gaining those priv's, which microsoft has not done anything about really. Maybe vista (haven't "beta tested" aka DLed it) will provide for some "system maintainer" that can't login interactively or over network by default, that's what I end up setting my local security on win2k as anyways...who knows...
what's your point? There's a commercial version, that's what I'm talking about. if they develop anything along those lines it should be free for all windows users without commercial intent beyond value-adding. anything beyond that is a conflict
well yes but there are a whole host of legit reasons admin's might write to the hosts file, or for apps to do that. The point to MS (at least publicly) is apparently that there are some sites which never should be remapped in HOSTS, and since they can't make exceptions for a million different TLD's, slowing everything down even more, only the "most important ones" get to be made exceptions, and it's just a really weird coincidence that they're all microsoft sites, none fo the competition are given this protection.
you're aware of what DNS does? what if their IP address has to change, do they have to update all their software to point to it? also, what the jist of the thread seems to be is that end-users at home will buy MS anti-spyware rather than trying to figure out why they can't get elsewhere.
I agree totally, only core sites should be listed, those required to fix the malware, but I think what the author's point was, was that you only seee this advantage if you're using MS anti-spyware (which , because of stuff like this, I've always was an ethical contradiction) listing the top 10 (popularity-wise) or so anti-spyware/adware sites would be more useful, since the supposed advantage is to sort of bootstrap the system from a state of mass-infection
like I said, I've always had a problem with the conflict of interest created by a company making money off of a product that essientially just compensates for the failure in one of its other products....