 |
|
|
|
Next: Symantec CEO rips Microsoft...but not by name
|
| Author |
Message |
External
Since: Apr 03, 2007
Posts: 1
|
(Msg. 1) Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2007 5:42 pm
Post subject: Can't see very simple HTML pages with Norton Internet Security!!!!!
Archived from groups: comp>security>firewalls, others (more info?)
|
|
|
Norton! What a pain in the butt!!!
I've just spent a few days trying to do something really simple, and
I'm furious!!!!
I took some pictures on the weekend, and downloaded Web Picture
Creator 1.8.
Let's put them on my new domain I thought. Yeah right.
Web Picture Creator 1.8 worked easily enough. After I cleared out
some space.
(turned that my hard drive was bad, and that wasted enough hours!)
Then I uploaded everything to my domain. The web page loaded.
But I can't see the pictures.
I call the ISP. They can see the pictures. Hmm!
The Norton logs say:
Content Blocked:
Date Time: 4/3/2007 2:38:55 PM
User:
Action: Blocked
Type: Ad
URL: http://www.?domain?.com/?directory?/index.html
Data: IMG src="thumbnails/thumb_DSC_0973.JPG" (Reason: width=120
height=80)
I call Norton and finally get someone in India.
Turn off ad blocking, and popup blocking. It works.
So, Norton is the culprit.
Norton Internet Security
Status and settings,
Privacy control
Configure
Advanced
Ad blocking
Spend about 2 hours with Norton on the phone.
The guy's solution: reinstall!
I say No way. Send the expert.
Eventually get a call back later from Symantec. The brains this
time.
We install TeamView. From: http://www.dyngate.com/licensing/
It allows him to see my machine.
He checks the webpage at:
http://validator.w3.org/
Below are the results of attempting to parse this document with an
SGML parser.
Error Line 15 column 162: required attribute "ALT" not specified.
....DSC_0961.JPG" width="120" height="80"></a></div></td>The attribute
given above is required for an element that you've used, but you have
omitted it. For instance, in most HTML and XHTML document types the
"type" attribute is required on the "script" element and the "alt"
attribute is required for the "img" element.
Typical values for type are type="text/css" for <style> and type="text/
javascript" for <script>.
It says that the problem is that the website is missing the > sign
after: height="80"
Norton interprets this as a potential problem.
I change the HTML To:
<tr>
<td valign="top" width="120"><div align="center"><a href="photos/
DSC_0961.html"><img class="thumb" src="thumbnails/thumb_DSC_0961.JPG"
width="120" height="80" alt="picture" > </a></div></td>
<td valign="top" width="120"><div align="center"><a href="photos/
DSC_0962.html"><img class="thumb" src="thumbnails/thumb_DSC_0962.JPG"
width="120" height="80" alt="picture" > </a></div></td>
But, I still have problems!!!! I still can't see the images.
But the guy at my ISP can. And my friends can.
But if that's not enough, get this!!!!
Now, after I refresh the webpage, major parts of the HTML don't even
come back in the browser!!!
<tr>
<td valign="top" width="120"><div align="center"><a href="photos/
DSC_0961.html"> </a></div></td>
<td valign="top" width="120"><div align="center"><a href="photos/
DSC_0962.html"> </a></div></td>
The whole IMG tag is now missing!!!!
The guy at my ISP can see it.
But it does not get through the Norton on my machine!
I can understand some kinds of strange code. But this is just pure
very simple HTML code. No java, javascript, asp, etc.
Can you believe it?????
I've spent at least 5 hours trying to deal with this!!!!
What is a better security system than Norton???? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 | |
External
Since: Apr 04, 2007
Posts: 1
|
(Msg. 2) Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 1:18 am
Post subject: Re: Can't see very simple HTML pages with Norton Internet Security!!!!! [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Imported from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Apr 04, 2007
Posts: 2
|
(Msg. 3) Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 8:39 am
Post subject: Re: Can't see very simple HTML pages with Norton Internet Security!!!!! [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Apr 04, 2007
Posts: 6
|
(Msg. 4) Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 8:55 am
Post subject: Re: Can't see very simple HTML pages with Norton Internet Security!!!!! [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 17:42:20 -0700, photoguy_222 wrote:
> Norton! What a pain in the butt!!!
>
> I've just spent a few days trying to do something really simple, and
> I'm furious!!!!
>
> I took some pictures on the weekend, and downloaded Web Picture
> Creator 1.8.
> Let's put them on my new domain I thought. Yeah right.
>
> Web Picture Creator 1.8 worked easily enough. After I cleared out
> some space.
> (turned that my hard drive was bad, and that wasted enough hours!)
>
> Then I uploaded everything to my domain. The web page loaded.
> But I can't see the pictures.
>
> I call the ISP. They can see the pictures. Hmm!
>
> The Norton logs say:
>
>
> Content Blocked:
>
> Date Time: 4/3/2007 2:38:55 PM
> User:
> Action: Blocked
> Type: Ad
> URL: http://www.?domain?.com/?directory?/index.html
> Data: IMG src="thumbnails/thumb_DSC_0973.JPG" (Reason: width=120
> height=80)
>
> I call Norton and finally get someone in India.
>
>
> Turn off ad blocking, and popup blocking. It works.
> So, Norton is the culprit.
>
>
> Norton Internet Security
> Status and settings,
> Privacy control
> Configure
> Advanced
> Ad blocking
>
>
> Spend about 2 hours with Norton on the phone.
> The guy's solution: reinstall!
>
> I say No way. Send the expert.
>
>
>
> Eventually get a call back later from Symantec. The brains this
> time.
>
>
> We install TeamView. From: http://www.dyngate.com/licensing/
> It allows him to see my machine.
>
> He checks the webpage at:
>
> http://validator.w3.org/
>
>
> Below are the results of attempting to parse this document with an
> SGML parser.
>
> Error Line 15 column 162: required attribute "ALT" not specified.
> ...DSC_0961.JPG" width="120" height="80"></a></div></td>The attribute
> given above is required for an element that you've used, but you have
> omitted it. For instance, in most HTML and XHTML document types the
> "type" attribute is required on the "script" element and the "alt"
> attribute is required for the "img" element.
>
> Typical values for type are type="text/css" for <style> and type="text/
> javascript" for <script>.
>
>
> It says that the problem is that the website is missing the > sign
> after: height="80"
>
> Norton interprets this as a potential problem.
>
>
> I change the HTML To:
>
> <tr>
> <td valign="top" width="120"><div align="center"><a href="photos/
> DSC_0961.html"><img class="thumb" src="thumbnails/thumb_DSC_0961.JPG"
> width="120" height="80" alt="picture" > </a></div></td>
> <td valign="top" width="120"><div align="center"><a href="photos/
> DSC_0962.html"><img class="thumb" src="thumbnails/thumb_DSC_0962.JPG"
> width="120" height="80" alt="picture" > </a></div></td>
>
>
>
> But, I still have problems!!!! I still can't see the images.
>
> But the guy at my ISP can. And my friends can.
>
>
>
> But if that's not enough, get this!!!!
>
> Now, after I refresh the webpage, major parts of the HTML don't even
> come back in the browser!!!
>
>
>
> <tr>
>
> <td valign="top" width="120"><div align="center"><a href="photos/
> DSC_0961.html"> </a></div></td>
> <td valign="top" width="120"><div align="center"><a href="photos/
> DSC_0962.html"> </a></div></td>
>
>
> The whole IMG tag is now missing!!!!
> The guy at my ISP can see it.
> But it does not get through the Norton on my machine!
>
>
> I can understand some kinds of strange code. But this is just pure
> very simple HTML code. No java, javascript, asp, etc.
>
>
> Can you believe it?????
>
>
> I've spent at least 5 hours trying to deal with this!!!!
>
>
> What is a better security system than Norton????
I'd suggest you try a Linux Live CD - Knoppix is the standard by which
others are measured. I've been running Linux on four home computers for
five years online 24/7/365 via a broadband connection. During that time we
have had zero malware infestations. I do not bother with anything like
norton - I simply use the system defaults, and everything works. I cannot
understand why MS people keep beating themselves up like this. Linux will
also come with GIMP image manipulation program, OpenOffice suite, and
about 25000 other free programs. The only shortcoming I've found so far:
there does not seem to be a decent simple program for printing greeting
cards - so I run an MS one on Linux under WINE. >> Stay informed about: Can't see very simple HTML pages with Norton Internet Secu.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Feb 19, 2005
Posts: 3
|
(Msg. 5) Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 10:19 am
Post subject: Re: Can't see very simple HTML pages with Norton Internet Security!!!!! [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: comp>security>firewalls, others (more info?)
|
|
|
Fup: comp.security.firewalls
photoguy_222.DeleteThis@yahoo.com wrote:
> Norton! What a pain in the butt!!!
Took a while to find out that... Nothing really unusual about your problems.
> What is a better security system than Norton????
You! No software is better than you. Any other security software will
have the same issues sooner or later. It is inherent in the way they are
designed and because it is still dumb software and nothing else.
Gerald >> Stay informed about: Can't see very simple HTML pages with Norton Internet Secu.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Apr 04, 2007
Posts: 1
|
(Msg. 6) Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 2:04 pm
Post subject: Re: Can't see very simple HTML pages with Norton Internet Security!!!!! [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Imported from groups: comp>security>firewalls, others (more info?)
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Apr 04, 2007
Posts: 1
|
(Msg. 7) Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 8:34 pm
Post subject: Re: Can't see very simple HTML pages with Norton Internet Security!!!!! [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: comp>security>firewalls, others (more info?)
|
|
|
>Norton! What a pain in the butt!!!
>I've just spent a few days trying to do something really simple, and
>I'm furious!!!!
Ive heard that F-Secure is one of the BEST for stopping virus's. I
used it years ago and loved it unfortunately dont have it now.
Spam blockers are entirely different beast and have to use a different
set of heuristics. I had a similar problem about 4 years ago but it
did not have to do with the size of the image it had to do with the
name of the image.
I was using Norton and had taken pictures of banners at a parade and
was posting banner.gif to the web site. I couldnt see it! Called the
client he could see it fine. Finally figured out Norton antispam as
blocking my pictures of parade banners because I named it banner.gif
and thats a common name for spam banners.
Its always a good idea to write valid HTML/XHTML code for the search
engines.
Earl
On Apr 3, 8:42 pm, photoguy_... DeleteThis @yahoo.com wrote:
> Norton! What a pain in the butt!!!
>
> I've just spent a few days trying to do something really simple, and
> I'm furious!!!!
>
> I took some pictures on the weekend, and downloaded Web Picture
> Creator 1.8.
> Let's put them on my new domain I thought. Yeah right.
>
> Web Picture Creator 1.8 worked easily enough. After I cleared out
> some space.
> (turned that my hard drive was bad, and that wasted enough hours!)
>
> Then I uploaded everything to my domain. The web page loaded.
> But I can't see the pictures.
>
> I call the ISP. They can see the pictures. Hmm!
>
> The Norton logs say:
>
> Content Blocked:
>
> Date Time: 4/3/2007 2:38:55 PM
> User:
> Action: Blocked
> Type: Ad
> URL:http://www.?domain?.com/?directory?/index.html
> Data: IMG src="thumbnails/thumb_DSC_0973.JPG" (Reason: width=120
> height=80)
>
> I call Norton and finally get someone in India.
>
> Turn off ad blocking, and popup blocking. It works.
> So, Norton is the culprit.
>
> Norton Internet Security
> Status and settings,
> Privacy control
> Configure
> Advanced
> Ad blocking
>
> Spend about 2 hours with Norton on the phone.
> The guy's solution: reinstall!
>
> I say No way. Send the expert.
>
> Eventually get a call back later from Symantec. The brains this
> time.
>
> We install TeamView. From:http://www.dyngate.com/licensing/
> It allows him to see my machine.
>
> He checks the webpage at:
>
> http://validator.w3.org/
>
> Below are the results of attempting to parse this document with an
> SGML parser.
>
> Error Line 15 column 162: required attribute "ALT" not specified.
> ...DSC_0961.JPG" width="120" height="80"></a></div></td>The attribute
> given above is required for an element that you've used, but you have
> omitted it. For instance, in most HTML and XHTML document types the
> "type" attribute is required on the "script" element and the "alt"
> attribute is required for the "img" element.
>
> Typical values for type are type="text/css" for <style> and type="text/
> javascript" for <script>.
>
> It says that the problem is that the website is missing the > sign
> after: height="80"
>
> Norton interprets this as a potential problem.
>
> I change the HTML To:
>
> <tr>
> <td valign="top" width="120"><div align="center"><a href="photos/
> DSC_0961.html"><img class="thumb" src="thumbnails/thumb_DSC_0961.JPG"
> width="120" height="80" alt="picture" > </a></div></td>
> <td valign="top" width="120"><div align="center"><a href="photos/
> DSC_0962.html"><img class="thumb" src="thumbnails/thumb_DSC_0962.JPG"
> width="120" height="80" alt="picture" > </a></div></td>
>
> But, I still have problems!!!! I still can't see the images.
>
> But the guy at my ISP can. And my friends can.
>
> But if that's not enough, get this!!!!
>
> Now, after I refresh the webpage, major parts of the HTML don't even
> come back in the browser!!!
>
> <tr>
>
> <td valign="top" width="120"><div align="center"><a href="photos/
> DSC_0961.html"> </a></div></td>
> <td valign="top" width="120"><div align="center"><a href="photos/
> DSC_0962.html"> </a></div></td>
>
> The whole IMG tag is now missing!!!!
> The guy at my ISP can see it.
> But it does not get through the Norton on my machine!
>
> I can understand some kinds of strange code. But this is just pure
> very simple HTML code. No java, javascript, asp, etc.
>
> Can you believe it?????
>
> I've spent at least 5 hours trying to deal with this!!!!
>
> What is a better security system than Norton???? >> Stay informed about: Can't see very simple HTML pages with Norton Internet Secu.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Apr 05, 2007
Posts: 5
|
(Msg. 8) Posted: Thu Apr 05, 2007 5:49 pm
Post subject: Re: Can't see very simple HTML pages with Norton Internet Security!!!!! [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
ray wrote:
>> Linux desktops are not ready; not because they aren't stable or
>> capable (arguably). It's because if it goes wrong, it's VERY hard to
>> get support, the errors are generally meaningless. There is a very
>> thin veneer of a UI in Linux. Cracks into the complex OS world beneath
>> the UI are all over the place.
>
> I see. You have not actually used Linux, have you. Simply spouting the
> same old mantra.
Predictable reply from a Linux person?
I've used Redhat, SuSE and Fedora Core, all in anger. WE don't have any
Linux machines here any more -- just Macs and our Windows servers.
>>> The point about malware is: why should I have to keep expending resources
>>> just because the base OS is so riddled with holes? I've got a lot better
>>> things to do with my time and money.
>> Use a Mac.
>
> I can't afford a mac, which BTW is based on BSD Unix which is quite
> similar to Linux.
Under the hood yes, but what user should care about that? None. It's not
relevant. Do you know what software my TV runs? No. Because you don't
need to know.
And you cannot hold up ANY Linux UI against Tiger.
>>> I'll reiterate that the patrons at the local library have been happily
>>> surfing the net, doing office apps, editing pictures, etc. for over two
>>> years now on Linux desktops and we have yet to hear a complaint. The
>>> systems just work.
>> Only because they don't know what they're missing out on.
>>
>>> BTW - I've seen the point made many times that profanity is simply a
>>> crutch for a weak mind. Now I believe it.
>> Despite Hatters lack of social skills, he has made some valid points.
>> Unless you have a pet Linux nerd, avoid it like the plague.
>
> If you were to actually try it, you might change your mind; but I gather
> there is little chance of that happening.
When will people wake up!? Computers are a means to an end. Who cares if
it's Linux, Windows or OS X. It has to be fit for purpose, do what it's
supposed to do.
--
x theSpaceGirl (miranda)
### future media, video, flash, animation @
# http://www.northleithmill.com
### music industry web & promotion @
# http://www.digitalharmony.co.uk
# Remove NO SPAM to email
# This message must not be reproduced anywhere but Usenet & GoogleGroups
# Copyright (c) digitalharmony >> Stay informed about: Can't see very simple HTML pages with Norton Internet Secu.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Apr 04, 2007
Posts: 6
|
(Msg. 9) Posted: Thu Apr 05, 2007 5:49 pm
Post subject: Re: Can't see very simple HTML pages with Norton Internet Security!!!!! [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 17:49:15 +0100, SpaceGirl wrote:
> ray wrote:
>>> Linux desktops are not ready; not because they aren't stable or
>>> capable (arguably). It's because if it goes wrong, it's VERY hard to
>>> get support, the errors are generally meaningless. There is a very
>>> thin veneer of a UI in Linux. Cracks into the complex OS world beneath
>>> the UI are all over the place.
>>
>> I see. You have not actually used Linux, have you. Simply spouting the
>> same old mantra.
>
> Predictable reply from a Linux person?
>
> I've used Redhat, SuSE and Fedora Core, all in anger. WE don't have any
> Linux machines here any more -- just Macs and our Windows servers.
When? Certainly not within the last year or two or you would know that
Adobe now has a Linux 'flash' plugin available from it's website.
>
>>>> The point about malware is: why should I have to keep expending resources
>>>> just because the base OS is so riddled with holes? I've got a lot better
>>>> things to do with my time and money.
>>> Use a Mac.
>>
>> I can't afford a mac, which BTW is based on BSD Unix which is quite
>> similar to Linux.
>
> Under the hood yes, but what user should care about that? None. It's not
> relevant. Do you know what software my TV runs? No. Because you don't
> need to know.
Most users should care because it reflects immediately on both security
and stability. What good does it do to have the 'best' software in the
world that cost you hundreds of dollars if the machine keeps crashing.
>
> And you cannot hold up ANY Linux UI against Tiger.
Sure I can. Any of a dozen or more.
>
>>>> I'll reiterate that the patrons at the local library have been happily
>>>> surfing the net, doing office apps, editing pictures, etc. for over two
>>>> years now on Linux desktops and we have yet to hear a complaint. The
>>>> systems just work.
>>> Only because they don't know what they're missing out on.
>>>
>>>> BTW - I've seen the point made many times that profanity is simply a
>>>> crutch for a weak mind. Now I believe it.
>>> Despite Hatters lack of social skills, he has made some valid points.
>>> Unless you have a pet Linux nerd, avoid it like the plague.
>>
>> If you were to actually try it, you might change your mind; but I gather
>> there is little chance of that happening.
>
>
> When will people wake up!? Computers are a means to an end. Who cares if
> it's Linux, Windows or OS X. It has to be fit for purpose, do what it's
> supposed to do.
Exactly. And I maintain that MS is not fit for the job for the average
users for two reasons (both ameleorated by running Linux) - it costs too
much (plus the several hundred dollars you need to make it productive) and
it takes too much admin time to keep it running safely. >> Stay informed about: Can't see very simple HTML pages with Norton Internet Secu.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Apr 05, 2007
Posts: 1
|
(Msg. 10) Posted: Thu Apr 05, 2007 5:49 pm
Post subject: Re: Can't see very simple HTML pages with Norton Internet [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Imported from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Apr 05, 2007
Posts: 5
|
(Msg. 11) Posted: Thu Apr 05, 2007 10:06 pm
Post subject: Re: Can't see very simple HTML pages with Norton Internet Security!!!!! [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
ray wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 17:49:15 +0100, SpaceGirl wrote:
>
>> ray wrote:
>>>> Linux desktops are not ready; not because they aren't stable or
>>>> capable (arguably). It's because if it goes wrong, it's VERY hard to
>>>> get support, the errors are generally meaningless. There is a very
>>>> thin veneer of a UI in Linux. Cracks into the complex OS world beneath
>>>> the UI are all over the place.
>>> I see. You have not actually used Linux, have you. Simply spouting the
>>> same old mantra.
>> Predictable reply from a Linux person?
>>
>> I've used Redhat, SuSE and Fedora Core, all in anger. WE don't have any
>> Linux machines here any more -- just Macs and our Windows servers.
>
> When? Certainly not within the last year or two or you would know that
> Adobe now has a Linux 'flash' plugin available from it's website.
>
That's the Flash Player, love. Not Flash itself. If you actually want to
create Flash on Linux you're screwed.
>> Under the hood yes, but what user should care about that? None. It's not
>> relevant. Do you know what software my TV runs? No. Because you don't
>> need to know.
>
> Most users should care because it reflects immediately on both security
> and stability. What good does it do to have the 'best' software in the
> world that cost you hundreds of dollars if the machine keeps crashing.
No they shouldn't Do you need to know how your car works to drive it?
>> And you cannot hold up ANY Linux UI against Tiger.
>
> Sure I can. Any of a dozen or more.
Name one that even comes close.
>> When will people wake up!? Computers are a means to an end. Who cares if
>> it's Linux, Windows or OS X. It has to be fit for purpose, do what it's
>> supposed to do.
>
> Exactly. And I maintain that MS is not fit for the job for the average
> users for two reasons (both ameleorated by running Linux) - it costs too
> much (plus the several hundred dollars you need to make it productive) and
> it takes too much admin time to keep it running safely.
I agree with that!
--
x theSpaceGirl (miranda)
### future media, video, flash, animation @
# http://www.northleithmill.com
### music industry web & promotion @
# http://www.digitalharmony.co.uk
# Remove NO SPAM to email
# This message must not be reproduced anywhere but Usenet & GoogleGroups
# Copyright (c) digitalharmony >> Stay informed about: Can't see very simple HTML pages with Norton Internet Secu.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Apr 04, 2007
Posts: 6
|
(Msg. 12) Posted: Thu Apr 05, 2007 10:06 pm
Post subject: Re: Can't see very simple HTML pages with Norton Internet Security!!!!! [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 22:06:07 +0100, SpaceGirl wrote:
> ray wrote:
>> On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 17:49:15 +0100, SpaceGirl wrote:
>>
>>> ray wrote:
>>>>> Linux desktops are not ready; not because they aren't stable or
>>>>> capable (arguably). It's because if it goes wrong, it's VERY hard to
>>>>> get support, the errors are generally meaningless. There is a very
>>>>> thin veneer of a UI in Linux. Cracks into the complex OS world beneath
>>>>> the UI are all over the place.
>>>> I see. You have not actually used Linux, have you. Simply spouting the
>>>> same old mantra.
>>> Predictable reply from a Linux person?
>>>
>>> I've used Redhat, SuSE and Fedora Core, all in anger. WE don't have any
>>> Linux machines here any more -- just Macs and our Windows servers.
>>
>> When? Certainly not within the last year or two or you would know that
>> Adobe now has a Linux 'flash' plugin available from it's website.
>>
>
> That's the Flash Player, love. Not Flash itself. If you actually want to
> create Flash on Linux you're screwed.
That's OK, dearie. I don't want to. BTW what part of "there are good
reasons for selecting one OS over the other" is it that you don't get?
>
>>> Under the hood yes, but what user should care about that? None. It's not
>>> relevant. Do you know what software my TV runs? No. Because you don't
>>> need to know.
>>
>> Most users should care because it reflects immediately on both security
>> and stability. What good does it do to have the 'best' software in the
>> world that cost you hundreds of dollars if the machine keeps crashing.
>
> No they shouldn't Do you need to know how your car works to drive it?
That depends on whether I need to fix it on a daily basis.
>
>>> And you cannot hold up ANY Linux UI against Tiger.
>>
>> Sure I can. Any of a dozen or more.
>
> Name one that even comes close.
My opinion will probably be different from yours - I happen to think
gnome, xfce, and enlightenment are perfectly acceptable.
>
>>> When will people wake up!? Computers are a means to an end. Who cares if
>>> it's Linux, Windows or OS X. It has to be fit for purpose, do what it's
>>> supposed to do.
>>
>> Exactly. And I maintain that MS is not fit for the job for the average
>> users for two reasons (both ameleorated by running Linux) - it costs too
>> much (plus the several hundred dollars you need to make it productive) and
>> it takes too much admin time to keep it running safely.
>
> I agree with that! >> Stay informed about: Can't see very simple HTML pages with Norton Internet Secu.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Apr 04, 2007
Posts: 6
|
(Msg. 13) Posted: Fri Apr 06, 2007 9:45 am
Post subject: Re: Can't see very simple HTML pages with Norton Internet Security!!!!! [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 03:12:32 -0700, nospam wrote:
> In article <pan.2007.04.05.22.52.18.973253.RemoveThis@zianet.com>, ray
> <ray.RemoveThis@zianet.com> wrote:
>
>> >>> Under the hood yes, but what user should care about that? None. It's not
>> >>> relevant. Do you know what software my TV runs? No. Because you don't
>> >>> need to know.
>> >>
>> >> Most users should care because it reflects immediately on both security
>> >> and stability. What good does it do to have the 'best' software in the
>> >> world that cost you hundreds of dollars if the machine keeps crashing.
>> >
>> > No they shouldn't Do you need to know how your car works to drive it?
>>
>> That depends on whether I need to fix it on a daily basis.
>
> why would anyone want to use something, regardless of what it is, that
> needs to be fixed on a daily basis?
You'd have to ask all the folks running MS  >> Stay informed about: Can't see very simple HTML pages with Norton Internet Secu.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Apr 05, 2007
Posts: 5
|
(Msg. 14) Posted: Fri Apr 06, 2007 11:07 am
Post subject: Re: Can't see very simple HTML pages with Norton Internet Security!!!!! [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
ray wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 22:06:07 +0100, SpaceGirl wrote:
>
>> ray wrote:
> That's OK, dearie. I don't want to. BTW what part of "there are good
> reasons for selecting one OS over the other" is it that you don't get?
There are plenty of good reasons why I WOULD recommend Linux for some
types of users; but casual users or inexperienced user... Linux isn't
ready. For lots of reasons. Basic examples being, say if the user wanted
to use broadband internet, chances are no drivers for their modem (at
least, none that come with the modem). No games to speak of. No tools
like iMovie or Windows Movie Maker. None of the linux distros I used had
any sort of photo management built in (Windows has mediocre support, OS
X has the excellent iPhoto). Also very little chance they will know
anyone who can help them fix their computer if it goes wrong, or them
being able to find a shop that will repair the install should anything
break. Yes you can find online support, but that's not much good if your
computer is broken is it? The list goes on and on... Linux simply is NOT
ready for the average user, and it's some years away from being ready.
>>>> Under the hood yes, but what user should care about that? None. It's not
>>>> relevant. Do you know what software my TV runs? No. Because you don't
>>>> need to know.
>>> Most users should care because it reflects immediately on both security
>>> and stability. What good does it do to have the 'best' software in the
>>> world that cost you hundreds of dollars if the machine keeps crashing.
>> No they shouldn't Do you need to know how your car works to drive it?
>
> That depends on whether I need to fix it on a daily basis.
>
>>>> And you cannot hold up ANY Linux UI against Tiger.
>>> Sure I can. Any of a dozen or more.
>> Name one that even comes close.
>
> My opinion will probably be different from yours - I happen to think
> gnome, xfce, and enlightenment are perfectly acceptable.
For an experienced computer person yes. All great programs.
--
x theSpaceGirl (miranda)
### future media, video, flash, animation @
# http://www.northleithmill.com
### music industry web & promotion @
# http://www.digitalharmony.co.uk
# Remove NO SPAM to email
# This message must not be reproduced anywhere but Usenet & GoogleGroups
# Copyright (c) digitalharmony >> Stay informed about: Can't see very simple HTML pages with Norton Internet Secu.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Apr 04, 2007
Posts: 6
|
(Msg. 15) Posted: Fri Apr 06, 2007 11:07 am
Post subject: Re: Can't see very simple HTML pages with Norton Internet Security!!!!! [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 11:07:14 +0100, SpaceGirl wrote:
> ray wrote:
>> On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 22:06:07 +0100, SpaceGirl wrote:
>>
>>> ray wrote:
>> That's OK, dearie. I don't want to. BTW what part of "there are good
>> reasons for selecting one OS over the other" is it that you don't get?
>
>
>
> There are plenty of good reasons why I WOULD recommend Linux for some
> types of users; but casual users or inexperienced user... Linux isn't
> ready. For lots of reasons. Basic examples being, say if the user wanted
> to use broadband internet, chances are no drivers for their modem (at
> least, none that come with the modem).
As you evidently don't know, most modern broadband setups today supply a
modem/router with an ethernet connection. It is a simple matter of
starting the computer and using a browser to access and setup the
modem/router and the process is essentially the same for MS, MAC and Linux.
> No games to speak of.
That's what they make game consoles for.
> No tools
> like iMovie or Windows Movie Maker. None of the linux distros I used had
> any sort of photo management built in (Windows has mediocre support, OS
> X has the excellent iPhoto).
You don't know what you are talking about. There are several such systems
available with almost every major Linux distribution.
> Also very little chance they will know
> anyone who can help them fix their computer if it goes wrong, or them
> being able to find a shop that will repair the install should anything
> break.
The kicker being, of course, that it does not break.
> Yes you can find online support, but that's not much good if
> your computer is broken is it?
Would seem like a compelling reason to start a LUG.
> The list goes on and on... Linux simply
> is NOT ready for the average user, and it's some years away from being
> ready.
That's your opinion, unsubstantiated by facts. My opinion, backed by 24000
free software packages and over two years of experience with a Linux setup
for public internet access is contrary to that. If I had not seen with my
own eyes eight linux seats running unattended for public internet access
at the local library with zero complaints for over two years, I might see
your point - but it is totally irrational.
>
>
>>>>> Under the hood yes, but what user should care about that? None. It's
>>>>> not relevant. Do you know what software my TV runs? No. Because you
>>>>> don't need to know.
>>>> Most users should care because it reflects immediately on both
>>>> security and stability. What good does it do to have the 'best'
>>>> software in the world that cost you hundreds of dollars if the
>>>> machine keeps crashing.
>>> No they shouldn't Do you need to know how your car works to drive it?
>>
>> That depends on whether I need to fix it on a daily basis.
>>
>>>>> And you cannot hold up ANY Linux UI against Tiger.
>>>> Sure I can. Any of a dozen or more.
>>> Name one that even comes close.
>>
>> My opinion will probably be different from yours - I happen to think
>> gnome, xfce, and enlightenment are perfectly acceptable.
>
> For an experienced computer person yes. All great programs. >> Stay informed about: Can't see very simple HTML pages with Norton Internet Secu.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
| Related Topics: | Norton Internet Security blocking .aspx pages? - If there is a better newsgroup to post this to, please advise. I am running NIS 2003 with the ad blocking feature enabled (blocks ads and pop-ups). Two web pages I regularly visit will not open unless I disable the ad-blocking feature. These web page....
Norton Internet Security 2005 inserting JavaScript code in.. - This has been a problem for some time. the script is inserted at the beginning and at the end of web pages using JavaScript. This script is inserted as the page is loaded into the browser and causes script in many pages to not run. Anyone know of a..
A simple Norton question about new computer.... - A simple question I cannot find an answer for. I have two computers and the one I am presently using has Norton which I just purchased a couple of weeks ago. I am purchasing a new computer and want to know if I can install the new Norton on the new..
Norton Internet Pro 2004 - Anyone had problems with it hogging resources? CCAPP.exe. Tried all the fixes from Symantec, but it still hogs. Seems the best thing to do is throw it away - anyone wanna buy a licences with 9.5 months updates left?
Norton Internet Security 2005 - Hi, I use Norton Internet Security 2003. In 2004 I opted not to upgrade to NIS 2004 but just to renew the subscription. There seemed to be a consensus that 2004 version was less reliable. Now, in 2005, I have the same dilemma: upgrade or renewal? .. |
|
You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
