New Fire Fox Update

[Guest Shane]

Re: New Fire Fox Update

 

Incidentally, Joan. I don't know if you read Viz or not, but I fear there's

been a case of identity theft (don't worry - not yours!). There's a letter

on the letters page from an Arthur Sixpence. Personally I don't think that's

likely at all!

 

 

Shane

 

 

Joan Archer wrote:

> Have you tried Maxthon Shane ? I use that, OK it's a shell that runs

> on the IE engine but has lots of features going for it. I do have IE7

> but with the Maxthon shell and have no problems even going to Windows

> Updates with it <g>

> Joan

>

>

>

> Shane wrote:

>>

>> I wouldn't be at all happy if he did that without consulting you,

>> Figgs. What, does he think it's *his* computer?

>>

>> Get used to it? I grew to hate it - but then found Pro's Group Policy

>> allows a few adjustments that I never found elsewhere, that enable me

>> to make it look a *little* more like I want my browser to look,

>> peform a little more like I want one to perform. But after a few

>> weeks - it is small potatoes. I thought for a moment there I might

>> place it on level footing with Firefox, but it's still not in the

>> same league. There are one or two things Internet Explorer does

>> better - like the way it gives saved pages a friendly name as opposed

>> to the meaningless cipher FF gives them, but that's hardly a basis on

>> which to choose!

>> I have all three now. I also had Opera but can't get on with that one

>> at all - it ranks with Avast! for me cosmetically and I think its

>> performance is similarly reminiscent. And I have a copy of Firebird -

>> which I wish they hadn't renamed - it was about the only nice unit

>> BSA!

>> But basically I run Firefox, IE6 and IE7. And that's the order I rank

>> them in (again!). Who knows what IE6sp2/IE7 would be like without the

>> stupid security warnig barrage! What M$ are doing since XP SP2, is

>> turning the whole of Windows into the OS for the AOL-grade schoolers.

>> I guess that's why they've persisted with the CDO! I dunno, its

>> almost the OS you'd get if you listened to the Mental Minority (I

>> guess they're still around, seeing as how their man and pal of Uncle

>> Charlie's still in the White House).

>> Unless Willy is really trying to wrest control of your machine from

>> you, Figgs, you can uninstall IE7 and automatically go back to 6. As

>> with all M$ installations in the IE7 ballpark, you get warned that

>> every prog you've installed since *might not work*! but I've never

>> known that happen, and even if it did in all likelihood all you'd

>> have to do is run the setup again. Or sue Willy. Jeez. Not like you

>> to take that kind of noive, Figgs! I'd tread on his knackers.

>>

>>

>> Shane

[Guest Joan Archer]

Re: New Fire Fox Update

 

I have seen the odd thing about UAC and a few peoples thoughts on it. I

haven't really gone into it much but my way of thinking was that Microsoft

were trying to make a more secure OS with Vista, after all there are a lot

of baddies out there in cyber-space <g> I suppose also thinking about how

many people will be using a machine and trying to protect it from stroppy

teenagers or the like <g>

 

Anyway I'll have to hold off on any thoughts about Vista until I actually

see a machine running it, then I can give an opinion <g>

Joan

 

 

Shane wrote:

>snip>

> Here's what I've just been reading - not specifically IE-related, but

> it is to do with Windows and internet access. It's more the direction

> they're going as exemplified by Vista:

> http://www.tweak-uac.com/am-i-at-risk-if-i-disable-uac/

>

> They are turning home computing into an absolutely awful experience!

> I have spent half my time with XP learning how to disable so-called

> 'Security Prompts' - and now it much worse!

>

> The only way M$ can want what they're doing and be rational is if

> what they want is to further the aim of a world population of sheep!

> There. Haven't mentioned *those* in a long time!

>

>

> Shane

[Guest Joan Archer]

Re: New Fire Fox Update

 

No I don't do you have an URL for it.

Joan

 

Shane wrote:

> Incidentally, Joan. I don't know if you read Viz or not, but I fear

> there's been a case of identity theft (don't worry - not yours!).

> There's a letter on the letters page from an Arthur Sixpence.

> Personally I don't think that's likely at all!

>

>

> Shane

[Guest Shane]

Re: New Fire Fox Update

 

Joan Archer wrote:

> I have seen the odd thing about UAC and a few peoples thoughts on it.

> I haven't really gone into it much but my way of thinking was that

> Microsoft were trying to make a more secure OS with Vista, after all

> there are a lot of baddies out there in cyber-space <g> I suppose

> also thinking about how many people will be using a machine and

> trying to protect it from stroppy teenagers or the like <g>

>

 

The indisputable truths of what he says in that piece are 1. that asking if

you really *really* want to run that, for everything remotely system-related

you click on, over and over and over - which rapidly becomes extremely

annoying to anyone who knows how to use a computer and wants to use the one

they paid a lot of money for, not have a nanny forced upon them by

Microsoft - is not remotely how you combat viruses and hackers.

 

To stop viruses and hackers you keep them from getting into the machine in

the first place, and if you can't do that, the damage has already been

done - the horse has already bolted.

 

And 2., that it doesn't protect your data files, ie what you value, it

protects the operating system, which can be re-installed and be none the

worse for it and is essentially valueless.

 

How does any of that amount to protection from baddies? Firewalls, anti

virus, anti spyware, these are what protect both you and the system - and

nothing more than those are required. How can Microsoft make a reliable

system for stopping viruses running progams if they can't stop them being

installed in the first place? It makes no sense at all.

 

Unless the real purpose is to remove control from the owner.

 

Are they so stupid that they can't see the lunacy of a protection system

that protects the system but *not* your personal files? The only rational

explanation I can think of - since I don't believe they're stupid - is that

the web service provider they want the personal computer to become, needs to

continue running, needs to retain an internet connection to be that (have

you been to that awful Windows Catalog? Well, it does belong in a world in

which the government gave permission for the Post Office to deliver junk

mail to us twice a day - didn't it used to be three times? Or possibly

thrice?)

 

Microsoft already disregard US copyright law and have an active campaign of

the propagation of barefaced lies what that law does say. And while there

are some genuinely-deranged souls out there who think people shouldn't say

things like that about them on a Microsoft-sponsored newsgroup, I'm not

slavering and swinging from the light-fittings, I'm calmly and rationally

inviting them to sue me if I'm not telling the truth. Perhaps one of those

who thinks I'm being sacriligeous should tell them what I've said so's they

can do something about it! I don't want snitches anywhere near me anyway -

I'm perfectly capable of informing on myself!

 

And I see Carey is *still* at it, on the VPC group! *Still* an MVP!

 

At best UAC is just for show but actually its because they don't want to

continue selling operating systems that *we* can maintain (which they have

planned openly - and is reminiscent of type approval of automobiles, where

we're not allowed to alter them in any way - and leads eventually,

inevitably to our no longer having any control over anything in our lives,

we just do what we're allowed to do and what we're told to do).

> Anyway I'll have to hold off on any thoughts about Vista until I

> actually see a machine running it, then I can give an opinion <g>

 

Yes, well you do that, Joan! I'm sure you'll see it for what it is.

 

And I'll tell you what it is! (<g> just sort-of kidding!)

 

It's aimed at the generation presently under construction that speaks in

text-speak and you can't have a quiet moment in public anymore because at

least one of them has tinny music coming through their head phones. The

generation those devices have and are being aimed at, are who Vista is aimed

at - the ones who don't understand what the problem is about spyware - so

long as they get a ringtone or some cool cursors. Sheep. Pliable consumers.

M$ is for business, not you and me.

 

I'd better eat some chips after that!

 

 

Shane

[Guest Alias]

Re: New Fire Fox Update

 

Shane wrote:

 

<snip>

> Unless the real purpose is to remove control from the owner.

 

Bingo!

 

<snip>

>

> And I see Carey is *still* at it, on the VPC group! *Still* an MVP!

 

Ye Olde Copy and Paste Himself! He sure is quick on recommending full

retail isn't he?

> It's aimed at the generation presently under construction that speaks in

> text-speak and you can't have a quiet moment in public anymore because at

> least one of them has tinny music coming through their head phones. The

> generation those devices have and are being aimed at, are who Vista is aimed

> at - the ones who don't understand what the problem is about spyware - so

> long as they get a ringtone or some cool cursors. Sheep. Pliable consumers.

> M$ is for business, not you and me.

 

Then why is my 18 year old bugging me to put Ubuntu on a dual boot with

XP and hates cell phones, XBox, PlayStation and Wii? My evil influence?

> I'd better eat some chips after that!

>

>

> Shane

>

 

I'm gonna have a bowl and play Devil May Cry 3 ;-) It's about all I use

XP for nowadays.

 

Alias

[Guest Shane]

Re: New Fire Fox Update

 

First I must stress that I'm not going back on what I've been saying for

years! Firewall, AV and AS are all the *software* required. Safe Hex is

still essential!

>

>> It's aimed at the generation presently under construction that

>> speaks in text-speak and you can't have a quiet moment in public

>> anymore because at least one of them has tinny music coming through

>> their head phones. The generation those devices have and are being

>> aimed at, are who Vista is aimed at - the ones who don't understand

>> what the problem is about spyware - so long as they get a ringtone

>> or some cool cursors. Sheep. Pliable consumers. M$ is for business,

>> not you and me.

>

> Then why is my 18 year old bugging me to put Ubuntu on a dual boot

> with XP and hates cell phones, XBox, PlayStation and Wii? My evil

> influence?

 

Undoubtedly.

 

>> I'd better eat some chips after that!

>>

>>

>> Shane

>>

>

> I'm gonna have a bowl and play Devil May Cry 3 ;-) It's about all I

> use XP for nowadays.

>

 

I bet he does, too, now that ol' Mr Portals himself and his sidekick Steve

Balls-ache are edging him out!

[Guest Joan Archer]

Re: New Fire Fox Update

 

Very interesting read Shane but as I said I will hold of giving my opinion

until I see it <g>

 

It's no use talking to me about text talk I don't understand it half the

time and always use the predictive text on my phone to spell out the full

words <g> it drives Kelly mad if she has to use my phone as she's one of

the text kids <g>

 

I agree with you with regards safe hex, all I have on here is

SpywareBlaster, Zone Alarm Pro, Ad-Aware 2007 and NOD32 plus of course my

fingers on the mouse and keyboard telling everything where to go <g>

Joan

 

 

Shane wrote:

>

> The indisputable truths of what he says in that piece are 1. that

> asking if you really *really* want to run that, for everything

> remotely system-related you click on, over and over and over - which

> rapidly becomes extremely annoying to anyone who knows how to use a

> computer and wants to use the one they paid a lot of money for, not

> have a nanny forced upon them by Microsoft - is not remotely how you

> combat viruses and hackers.

>snip>

[Guest Shane]

Re: New Fire Fox Update

 

'Predictive text' sounds like that ruddy business where you hit one key and

three letters come up - that drives me round the bend when I try to send a

text message! On account of I've got my mum's old phone (I stopped using

them after Devon - but when I was going back and forth with my dad's

troubles she thought it'd be a good idea - and I agree. It's what they're

for!). But I don't see where in hell you're supposed to turn it back to just

straight forward typing!

 

So that's what it's called is it?

 

Or are you just guessing? <ha ha!>

 

Shane

 

 

Joan Archer wrote:

> Very interesting read Shane but as I said I will hold of giving my

> opinion until I see it <g>

>

> It's no use talking to me about text talk I don't understand it half

> the time and always use the predictive text on my phone to spell out

> the full words <g> it drives Kelly mad if she has to use my phone as

> she's one of the text kids <g>

>

> I agree with you with regards safe hex, all I have on here is

> SpywareBlaster, Zone Alarm Pro, Ad-Aware 2007 and NOD32 plus of

> course my fingers on the mouse and keyboard telling everything where

> to go <g> Joan

>

>

> Shane wrote:

>>

>> The indisputable truths of what he says in that piece are 1. that

>> asking if you really *really* want to run that, for everything

>> remotely system-related you click on, over and over and over - which

>> rapidly becomes extremely annoying to anyone who knows how to use a

>> computer and wants to use the one they paid a lot of money for, not

>> have a nanny forced upon them by Microsoft - is not remotely how you

>> combat viruses and hackers.

>

>> snip>

[Guest Shane]

Re: New Fire Fox Update

 

No, it doesn't seem to be in the online version.

 

In fact I get the idea they don't want us to be able to read the whole comic

without paying for it! Basters!

 

 

Shane

 

 

Joan Archer wrote:

> No I don't do you have an URL for it.

> Joan

>

> Shane wrote:

>> Incidentally, Joan. I don't know if you read Viz or not, but I fear

>> there's been a case of identity theft (don't worry - not yours!).

>> There's a letter on the letters page from an Arthur Sixpence.

>> Personally I don't think that's likely at all!

>>

>>

>> Shane

[Guest cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)]

Re: New Fire Fox Update

 

On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 19:10:11 +0100, "Shane" wrote:

>Joan Archer wrote:

>> I have seen the odd thing about UAC and a few peoples thoughts on it.

>> Microsoft were trying to make a more secure OS with Vista, after all

>> there are a lot of baddies out there in cyber-space

>To stop viruses and hackers you keep them from getting into the machine in

>the first place, and if you can't do that, the damage has already been

>done - the horse has already bolted.

 

Welcome to the real world - you're as much of an ostrich as MS, there.

 

The world's largest, cheapest and most powerful mail servers are

botnets of infected PCs. It's pointless being prissy, pretending that

prevention of infection is all everyone will ever need to do.

>And 2., that it doesn't protect your data files, ie what you value, it

>protects the operating system, which can be re-installed and be none the

>worse for it and is essentially valueless.

 

Two things:

 

1) Yes, I agree with you

 

User permissions and UAC have NOTHING to do with protecting your data,

because even the most limited user rights still have the right to edit

(and thus trash) data. At best, they may present a speedbump to

stealing the data, if the account is so locked down that it has no

ability to sent anything to Internet or removable drives.

 

The whole user account thing is an exercise in "vendor vision", i.e.

it reduces MS and OEM support responsibilities.

 

As long as anything running in the user's contexts has the same power

as the user, this will always be the case. UAC is a welcome change in

that for the first time, the user at the keyboard has control elevated

over scripts and automation that (it is at last acknowledged) may not

be running and acting with the user's intent.

 

2) No, I disagree with you

 

Re-installing the OS is NOT a painful process; the side-effects can be

catastrophic if you have the Dubious Advantage of an OEM wipe-only

"recovery disk" (vendor-vision again... what exactly does this disk

"recover"?). Even if you did get a proper OS disk and know how to use

it, you will still revert to an older and more exploitable code base,

and lose many protective settings etc. you may have applied.

 

And after all that, it's prolly not going to kill the malware anyway,

or the malware will be restored with your "data" backups, or however

it got in the last time, it will do so again - because by not bothing

to detect and assess what happened, you've learned NOTHING.

>How does any of that amount to protection from baddies? Firewalls, anti

>virus, anti spyware, these are what protect both you and the system - and

>nothing more than those are required.

 

That's why infected PCs are so rare, right?

>Are they so stupid that they can't see the lunacy of a protection system

>that protects the system but *not* your personal files?

 

Yes - that's not stupidity, that's policy, and standard across the

industry. A support dude in a call center has to handle X calls per

hour, and spending time helping users with things that are not the

vendor's responsibility is often a firing offence.

 

Anyone here found great support techs at a company, only to find they

are "no longer with us" when you go back a few months later?

 

This vendor-vision fits the corporate world, too, where the model is:

- everything we need is on the server anyway

- so the desktop is a disposable chew-toy

 

When you speak of "just" re-installing the OS, you are fitting in with

that mindset; that's how professional IT "maintains" desktop PCs.

 

One reason there are so many malware'd PCs is because the owners

didn't do everything they could have done to prevent getting infected,

and perhaps ostriches like MS assume this is the only reason.

 

Another reason is because even if you do all the right things at the

best of your ability, you can still get malware'd anyway. Do I claim

I'm not malware'd? No, because I'm not in a position to distinguish

between being malware-free and being malware'd by something smart

enough to hide itself from me.

 

But a third reason is that if the only choice is between staying

malware'd and "just" wiping and rebuilding the PC (again), some folks

will just shrug and stay malware'd.

>At best UAC is just for show

 

It's actually developed as a transitional technology, much like ISA

PnP support from the Win95 era.

 

It's possible to code apps that won't pop up UAC at all, and it is

expected that as sware vendors catch up (and perhaps the only slugs

slower than sware vendors are telcos) so we will have a system that

transparently works better, just as PnP has become today.

 

In fact, UAC is itself a catch-up technology.

 

You've heard *NIX folks claiming their model is more secure, and a big

part of that goes about escalation prompts to "authenticate as root".

 

Same thing in MacOS; certain things require extra authentication or at

least an "are you sre?" dialog to click through.

 

And 3rd-party sware has offered this as an add-on feature in Windows;

personal firewalls and then tools like PrevX and All-Seeing-Eye that

prompt you for internal matters, just as UAC does.

>M$ is for business, not you and me.

 

That, unfortunately, has been my conclusion as well.

 

I've written about that in other posts, but part of the problem is

that we are assumed to be a "done deal".

 

In the big business sector, Linux is now what mini-computers, Netware

and UNIX were before; a credible competitor that has to be wrestled

with for market share.

 

But Linux is comparitively useless for consumers, and Apple are too

timid to compete head-on, preferring to play the lock-in game. After

all, why support many millions of users at a low margin, if you can

make as much money with 1% of that user base by gouging on price?

 

So all MS has to do is keep the big OEMs sweet, and we're in the bag.

In effect, MS and OEMs gang up as a closed cartel to feast on you.

>I'd better eat some chips after that!

 

And I'm off to make some tea :-)

 

 

>--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -

To one who only has a hammer,

everything looks like a nail

>--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -

[Guest Shane]

Re: New Fire Fox Update

 

I'll look at the rest later, Chris, but for now point out that I'm talking

about from the point of view of users who know how to operate the computer,

that the point is it is entirely set for novice mode now and unless you're a

novice, is an awful experience. But that M$ only want novice customers and

want them to remain novices.

 

 

Shane

 

 

cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) wrote:

> On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 19:10:11 +0100, "Shane" wrote:

>> Joan Archer wrote:

>

>>> I have seen the odd thing about UAC and a few peoples thoughts on

>>> it. Microsoft were trying to make a more secure OS with Vista,

>>> after all there are a lot of baddies out there in cyber-space

>

>> To stop viruses and hackers you keep them from getting into the

>> machine in the first place, and if you can't do that, the damage has

>> already been done - the horse has already bolted.

>

> Welcome to the real world - you're as much of an ostrich as MS, there.

>

> The world's largest, cheapest and most powerful mail servers are

> botnets of infected PCs. It's pointless being prissy, pretending that

> prevention of infection is all everyone will ever need to do.

>

>> And 2., that it doesn't protect your data files, ie what you value,

>> it protects the operating system, which can be re-installed and be

>> none the worse for it and is essentially valueless.

>

> Two things:

>

> 1) Yes, I agree with you

>

> User permissions and UAC have NOTHING to do with protecting your data,

> because even the most limited user rights still have the right to edit

> (and thus trash) data. At best, they may present a speedbump to

> stealing the data, if the account is so locked down that it has no

> ability to sent anything to Internet or removable drives.

>

> The whole user account thing is an exercise in "vendor vision", i.e.

> it reduces MS and OEM support responsibilities.

>

> As long as anything running in the user's contexts has the same power

> as the user, this will always be the case. UAC is a welcome change in

> that for the first time, the user at the keyboard has control elevated

> over scripts and automation that (it is at last acknowledged) may not

> be running and acting with the user's intent.

>

> 2) No, I disagree with you

>

> Re-installing the OS is NOT a painful process; the side-effects can be

> catastrophic if you have the Dubious Advantage of an OEM wipe-only

> "recovery disk" (vendor-vision again... what exactly does this disk

> "recover"?). Even if you did get a proper OS disk and know how to use

> it, you will still revert to an older and more exploitable code base,

> and lose many protective settings etc. you may have applied.

>

> And after all that, it's prolly not going to kill the malware anyway,

> or the malware will be restored with your "data" backups, or however

> it got in the last time, it will do so again - because by not bothing

> to detect and assess what happened, you've learned NOTHING.

>

>> How does any of that amount to protection from baddies? Firewalls,

>> anti virus, anti spyware, these are what protect both you and the

>> system - and nothing more than those are required.

>

> That's why infected PCs are so rare, right?

>

>> Are they so stupid that they can't see the lunacy of a protection

>> system that protects the system but *not* your personal files?

>

> Yes - that's not stupidity, that's policy, and standard across the

> industry. A support dude in a call center has to handle X calls per

> hour, and spending time helping users with things that are not the

> vendor's responsibility is often a firing offence.

>

> Anyone here found great support techs at a company, only to find they

> are "no longer with us" when you go back a few months later?

>

> This vendor-vision fits the corporate world, too, where the model is:

> - everything we need is on the server anyway

> - so the desktop is a disposable chew-toy

>

> When you speak of "just" re-installing the OS, you are fitting in with

> that mindset; that's how professional IT "maintains" desktop PCs.

>

> One reason there are so many malware'd PCs is because the owners

> didn't do everything they could have done to prevent getting infected,

> and perhaps ostriches like MS assume this is the only reason.

>

> Another reason is because even if you do all the right things at the

> best of your ability, you can still get malware'd anyway. Do I claim

> I'm not malware'd? No, because I'm not in a position to distinguish

> between being malware-free and being malware'd by something smart

> enough to hide itself from me.

>

> But a third reason is that if the only choice is between staying

> malware'd and "just" wiping and rebuilding the PC (again), some folks

> will just shrug and stay malware'd.

>

>> At best UAC is just for show

>

> It's actually developed as a transitional technology, much like ISA

> PnP support from the Win95 era.

>

> It's possible to code apps that won't pop up UAC at all, and it is

> expected that as sware vendors catch up (and perhaps the only slugs

> slower than sware vendors are telcos) so we will have a system that

> transparently works better, just as PnP has become today.

>

> In fact, UAC is itself a catch-up technology.

>

> You've heard *NIX folks claiming their model is more secure, and a big

> part of that goes about escalation prompts to "authenticate as root".

>

> Same thing in MacOS; certain things require extra authentication or at

> least an "are you sre?" dialog to click through.

>

> And 3rd-party sware has offered this as an add-on feature in Windows;

> personal firewalls and then tools like PrevX and All-Seeing-Eye that

> prompt you for internal matters, just as UAC does.

>

>> M$ is for business, not you and me.

>

> That, unfortunately, has been my conclusion as well.

>

> I've written about that in other posts, but part of the problem is

> that we are assumed to be a "done deal".

>

> In the big business sector, Linux is now what mini-computers, Netware

> and UNIX were before; a credible competitor that has to be wrestled

> with for market share.

>

> But Linux is comparitively useless for consumers, and Apple are too

> timid to compete head-on, preferring to play the lock-in game. After

> all, why support many millions of users at a low margin, if you can

> make as much money with 1% of that user base by gouging on price?

>

> So all MS has to do is keep the big OEMs sweet, and we're in the bag.

> In effect, MS and OEMs gang up as a closed cartel to feast on you.

>

>> I'd better eat some chips after that!

>

> And I'm off to make some tea :-)

>

>

>

>> --------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -

> To one who only has a hammer,

> everything looks like a nail

>> --------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -

[Guest cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)]

Re: New Fire Fox Update

 

On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 13:45:32 +0100, "Shane" <shanebeatson@gmail.com>

>I'll look at the rest later, Chris, but for now point out that I'm talking

>about from the point of view of users who know how to operate the computer,

>that the point is it is entirely set for novice mode now and unless you're a

>novice, is an awful experience. But that M$ only want novice customers and

>want them to remain novices.

 

Here's the maths:

 

Skills needed to use the PC

-

Skills needed to use the PC safely

=

Safety gap

 

Malware thrives in the Safety Gap.

 

It is a disservice to newbies to pretend they do not have to know the

difference between "run code" and "view data", or to know where their

PC ends and where the Internet begins.

 

We need a safer UI. Without that, it won't only be total newbies that

get shot to pieces... it's not enough to secure access to authorised

users if the consequences of what these users do are far beyond the

effects they might have intended.

 

And as to "newbies" in the workplace...

 

"I'm sorry, but you appear to have mis-represented your skill set at

your job interview, on the basis of which you were hired. This

invalidates your hired status - goodbye."

 

 

>------------ ----- --- -- - - - -

Things should be made as simple as possible,

but no simpler - attrib. Albert Einstein

>------------ ----- --- -- - - - -

[Guest Eric]

Re: New Fire Fox Update

 

2.0.0.5 just came out? It's 2007!

 

I'm a bit behind the times, running 1.5.0.6.

It has this weird issue, where clicking the drop down for typed urls makes

the list appear and disappear, just the first time for the session.

 

"Alias" <aka@maskedandanonymous.info> wrote in message

news:%23r0AB6UyHHA.1776@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

> Heather wrote:

>> Nope....I have 2.0.0.4....is that the one?? Came out a week or two ago.

>>

>> Figgs, older and faster, grin.

>>

>> "Alias" <aka@maskedandanonymous.info> wrote in message

>> news:%23bjoyjTyHHA.4640@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

>>> Alias

>>

>>

>

> Yep, I have version 2.0.0.5. Came out today, both in English and in

> Spanish. Open Fire Fox. Help/Check for Updates.

>

> Alias

[Guest Shane]

Re: New Fire Fox Update

 

I do intend dealing with this thoroughly - but what with the conditions

here, I really do have better things to do. For now I shall observe that you

appear to have based the bulk of your argument and abuse on failing to have

read the follow-up post (to Alias) made 10 hours earlier. It seems barely

credible that you would put so much effort into a rebuttal yet not read a

post made by the person you are seeking to contradict, 10 hours earlier.

Anyway, I shall deal with that later.

 

 

Shane

 

cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) wrote:

> On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 13:45:32 +0100, "Shane" <shanebeatson@gmail.com>

>

>> I'll look at the rest later, Chris, but for now point out that I'm

>> talking about from the point of view of users who know how to

>> operate the computer, that the point is it is entirely set for

>> novice mode now and unless you're a novice, is an awful experience.

>> But that M$ only want novice customers and want them to remain

>> novices.

>

> Here's the maths:

>

> Skills needed to use the PC

> -

> Skills needed to use the PC safely

> =

> Safety gap

>

> Malware thrives in the Safety Gap.

>

> It is a disservice to newbies to pretend they do not have to know the

> difference between "run code" and "view data", or to know where their

> PC ends and where the Internet begins.

>

> We need a safer UI. Without that, it won't only be total newbies that

> get shot to pieces... it's not enough to secure access to authorised

> users if the consequences of what these users do are far beyond the

> effects they might have intended.

>

> And as to "newbies" in the workplace...

>

> "I'm sorry, but you appear to have mis-represented your skill set at

> your job interview, on the basis of which you were hired. This

> invalidates your hired status - goodbye."

>

>

>

>> ------------ ----- --- -- - - - -

> Things should be made as simple as possible,

> but no simpler - attrib. Albert Einstein

>> ------------ ----- --- -- - - - -

[Guest cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)]

Re: New Fire Fox Update

 

On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 10:29:59 +0100, "Shane" wrote:

>I shall observe that you appear to have based the bulk of your

>argument and abuse on failing to have read the follow-up post

>(to Alias) made 10 hours earlier.

 

I don't see all posts in every thread, for various reasons... <shrug>

 

But I am puzzled as to why you think I'm "arguing" or "abusing" the

material I replied to - if anything, I thought I was re-inforcing the

points made. My point is that MS dumbs things down so far that folks

can easily get themselves into trouble... like handguns for toddlers.

>cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) wrote:

>> On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 13:45:32 +0100, "Shane" <shanebeatson@gmail.com>

>>> I'll look at the rest later, Chris

 

Maybe you're replying to an earlier (no snipped) post?

>>> I'm talking about from the point of view of users who know how to

>>> operate the computer, that the point is it is entirely set for novice

>>> mode now and unless you're a novice, is an awful experience.

 

IKWYM. There's too much stuff that "does things for you"; often

hi-risk things, or things that can mess you up with no undo.

>>> But that M$ only want novice customers and want them to remain

>>> novices.

 

MS understands the pro-IT world, which is made up of folks speaking

the same language (usually from MS's own certifications etc.).

 

MS reckon they understand the consumer better than we do, and sales

would appear to prove them right - but those sales may go more about

historical market dominance and OEM relations than folks making a

conscious choice. Linux rarely comes pre-installed, MacOS forces you

to pay "Apple Tax", and most visible software needs Windows.

 

But in between pitching to newbies (are there any left, by now?

Aren't most PC buyers, repeat buyers?) and the pro-IT in-club, they

don't seem to know what's going on at all.

 

They treat consumers as if they had no recourse to tech support better

than the "try wiping and re-installing, if that fails we;ll test the

hardware" nadir of volume OEMs. The pits become the standard.

 

 

>--------------- ---- --- -- - - - -

Saws are too hard to use.

Be easier to use!

>--------------- ---- --- -- - - - -

[Guest jeanette]

Re: New Fire Fox Update

 

 

"Shane" <shanebeatson@gmail.com>

> > It has been popping up on my screen for nearly two weeks, but I keep

> > refusing it by clicking 'later'.

> > I do this because it states it will not support my Star Downloader,

> > and it took me forever to find this downloadmanager that is

> > free.......... and works like a charm too.

> > Seems like a communication breakdown twixt Mozilla and Star programers

> > just wish they would see the big picture.

> > In this case, it seems that Mozilla is the guilty party, especially

> > as they have

> > pointed out via their update that Star wont work........ in other

> > words, they

> > could have easily worked it into the new version due to prior

> > knowledge.

> >

> > just two bobs.

> >

>

> Hi, Jeanette,

>

> Yes, that frequently happens, basically because the extensions aren't

> written by Mozilla and it's up to the extension writers to update them. As

> there are new test builds of Firefox released most, if not every, night,

it

> is down to the extension writers to update for the latest which is likely

to

> become the official new, stable build eventually. Given that Firefox is

free

> and Open Source, you can't really blame the FF team for anything re

> extensions or themes. That's done by enthusiasts (you or I could have a go

> at writing one if we wanted!) or by software suppliers who want to use FF

as

> a platform for their product.

>

> Download reminders repeatedly popping up: apart from the fact new builds

> *are* security fixes - where Microsoft release a patch (though not for IE

in

> Win ME anymore), Mozilla release a complete new build - but one that you

can

> (usually) update requiring only a small part rather than the whole of the

> total download - I and doubtless many others prefer to disable update

> checking nonetheless. We check regularly enough anyway plus someone always

> posts of new builds in places like this, so it's not really any sort of

> threat.

>

> To disable automatic checking, go to Tools\Options\Advanced\Update and

> uncheck the three (or just the top one) boxes on the subject. But if you

> don't come to places like this regularly, and forget to manually check,

you

> could end up with something seriously compromised like Heather!

>

> <vbg - probably in the 'evil' category>

 

--------------------------------------

 

**jeanette likes gossip,,,, please tell more..... vvvvvbg :)~ ****

 

----------------------------------------

 

>

> But as for extensions, generally, when they don't work in a new build of

FF

> it's because it's written by someone doing it in their spare time and it

> isn't *that* much of a priority. And usually it gets corrected quite

> quickly. My own feeling on your experience is that the writers of Star

> Downloader can't yet appreciate the popularity of FF and so have not been

in

> any sort of hurry to upgrade (?). I use MetaProducts Mass Downloader (not

> free) and that happened to me several builds back. I got the idea the Mass

> Downloader plugin was written by someone unconnected with MetaProducts.

> Except that it *is* available directly from them (always, it seems, as a

> beta). Anyhow the forums are sufficiently exercised on the subject that I

> think they dismissed FF as a pretender for a while but that is never going

> to happen again. Though I still don't know if MD actually write the

plugin.

>

> Shane

 

Wow!!, great explanation shane, I never looked at it that way.

I will put the FF update on hold for now due to rooooly oooooley

liking StarDownloader..... 'Free' being one of its attraction features.

(and its served me well for a long time..... no problems at all.)

Think I might try and get a little closer to S/D itself and perhaps ask

them if they intend on making their D/L-er compatible with FF2007.

 

Thanks shane....

 

J

>

>

[Guest Shane]

Re: New Fire Fox Update

 

Hey, Jeanette? My Ad-aware - in this installation anyway (haven't tried any

of the others, I only just now tried this one) - has the 5% error again. It

is beginning to intrigue me! If I learn anything, I'll post back - but for

now I'm getting some shut eye.

 

 

Shane

 

 

 

jeanette wrote:

> "Shane" <shanebeatson@gmail.com>

>

>>> It has been popping up on my screen for nearly two weeks, but I keep

>>> refusing it by clicking 'later'.

>>> I do this because it states it will not support my Star Downloader,

>>> and it took me forever to find this downloadmanager that is

>>> free.......... and works like a charm too.

>>> Seems like a communication breakdown twixt Mozilla and Star

>>> programers just wish they would see the big picture.

>>> In this case, it seems that Mozilla is the guilty party, especially

>>> as they have

>>> pointed out via their update that Star wont work........ in other

>>> words, they

>>> could have easily worked it into the new version due to prior

>>> knowledge.

>>>

>>> just two bobs.

>>>

>>

>> Hi, Jeanette,

>>

>> Yes, that frequently happens, basically because the extensions aren't

>> written by Mozilla and it's up to the extension writers to update

>> them. As there are new test builds of Firefox released most, if not

>> every, night, it is down to the extension writers to update for the

>> latest which is likely to become the official new, stable build

>> eventually. Given that Firefox is free and Open Source, you can't

>> really blame the FF team for anything re extensions or themes.

>> That's done by enthusiasts (you or I could have a go at writing one

>> if we wanted!) or by software suppliers who want to use FF as a

>> platform for their product.

>>

>> Download reminders repeatedly popping up: apart from the fact new

>> builds *are* security fixes - where Microsoft release a patch

>> (though not for IE in Win ME anymore), Mozilla release a complete

>> new build - but one that you can (usually) update requiring only a

>> small part rather than the whole of the total download - I and

>> doubtless many others prefer to disable update checking nonetheless.

>> We check regularly enough anyway plus someone always posts of new

>> builds in places like this, so it's not really any sort of threat.

>>

>> To disable automatic checking, go to Tools\Options\Advanced\Update

>> and uncheck the three (or just the top one) boxes on the subject.

>> But if you don't come to places like this regularly, and forget to

>> manually check, you could end up with something seriously

>> compromised like Heather!

>>

>> <vbg - probably in the 'evil' category>

>

> --------------------------------------

>

> **jeanette likes gossip,,,, please tell more..... vvvvvbg :)~

> ****

>

> ----------------------------------------

>

>

>>

>> But as for extensions, generally, when they don't work in a new

>> build of FF it's because it's written by someone doing it in their

>> spare time and it isn't *that* much of a priority. And usually it

>> gets corrected quite quickly. My own feeling on your experience is

>> that the writers of Star Downloader can't yet appreciate the

>> popularity of FF and so have not been in any sort of hurry to

>> upgrade (?). I use MetaProducts Mass Downloader (not free) and that

>> happened to me several builds back. I got the idea the Mass

>> Downloader plugin was written by someone unconnected with

>> MetaProducts. Except that it *is* available directly from them

>> (always, it seems, as a beta). Anyhow the forums are sufficiently

>> exercised on the subject that I think they dismissed FF as a

>> pretender for a while but that is never going to happen again.

>> Though I still don't know if MD actually write the plugin.

>>

>> Shane

>

> Wow!!, great explanation shane, I never looked at it that way.

> I will put the FF update on hold for now due to rooooly oooooley

> liking StarDownloader..... 'Free' being one of its attraction

> features. (and its served me well for a long time..... no problems at

> all.)

> Think I might try and get a little closer to S/D itself and perhaps

> ask them if they intend on making their D/L-er compatible with FF2007.

>

> Thanks shane....

>

> J

[Guest Alexander Bednyakov]

Re: New Fire Fox Update

 

Shane,

> "Shane" <shanebeat...@gmail.com>

> But as for extensions, generally, when they don't work in a new build of FF

> it's because it's written by someone doing it in their spare time and it

> isn't *that* much of a priority.

 

It's simple - FF demands plug-ins to name versions of FF they support;

it doesn't allow to use the future (non-existing yet) numbers of

versions. And, when the new version of FF is released, most of plug-

ins contain the "old" supported version number. FF doesn't allow to

use them. Developers update their plug-ins adding the newest version

number quickly.

So, it isn't a bug, it is a "FF's feature" :-)

> And usually it gets corrected quite

> quickly. My own feeling on your experience is that the writers of Star

> Downloader can't yet appreciate the popularity of FF and so have not been in

> any sort of hurry to upgrade (?). I use MetaProductsMass Downloader(not

> free) and that happened to me several builds back. I got the idea the Mass

> Downloader plugin was written by someone unconnected with MetaProducts.

> Except that it *is* available directly from them (always, it seems, as a

> beta).

 

No, the MetaProducts Integration plug-in isn't a beta; it can be

downloaded here:

http://www.metaproducts.com/download/mpint.xpi

> Anyhow the forums are sufficiently exercised on the subject that I

> think they dismissed FF as a pretender for a while but that is never going

> to happen again. Though I still don't know if MD actually write the

> plugin.

 

The MetaProducts Integration Plug-in is written by the MetaProducts.

Please write us (support@metaproducts.com) if you have any question of

problem with it. Thank you!

 

Best regards,

Alexander Bednyakov

MetaProducts Corporation

http://www.metaproducts.com

> Shane