back and front MALWARE girl
 

On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 19:55:48 -0500, tom wrote:


At home - 2 independent firewalls, dual different antivirus, dual
different anti-malware, plus a lot more and I still don't feel all that
safe. But one of my work hats is to be professionally paranoid. I just
wish work was as tight as home.

tom
K0TAR

I just use Ubuntu and don't worry about it.

back and front MALWARE girl
 

On 9/29/2011 1:20 PM, dave wrote:
On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 19:55:48 -0500, tom wrote:


At home - 2 independent firewalls, dual different antivirus, dual
different anti-malware, plus a lot more and I still don't feel all that
safe. But one of my work hats is to be professionally paranoid. I just
wish work was as tight as home.

tom
K0TAR

I just use Ubuntu and don't worry about it.

I need Win and X windows both. Some things are not easily portable.
Even when running CrossOver. Which is an incredible piece of work for
Office and lots of other stuff, the old antenna programs don't work
well, if at all. As well as the new ones.

Disclaimer - I have not tried ELNEC yet.

On to an OS low key rant.

I have machines from OS9, a unix style OS for microcomputers (the real
one from Motorola for 68xx and 68xxx CPUs, not Apple) through Win98,
2000, XP Home/Pro, and some versions of Win7.

And some flavors of linux that most people don't play with because they
require knowledge of the underbelly.

tom
K0TAR

back and front MALWARE girl
 

"tom" wrote in message
. net...
On 9/29/2011 1:20 PM, dave wrote:
On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 19:55:48 -0500, tom wrote:


At home - 2 independent firewalls, dual different antivirus, dual
different anti-malware, plus a lot more and I still don't feel all that
safe. But one of my work hats is to be professionally paranoid. I just
wish work was as tight as home.

tom
K0TAR

I just use Ubuntu and don't worry about it.

I need Win and X windows both. Some things are not easily portable. Even
when running CrossOver. Which is an incredible piece of work for Office
and lots of other stuff, the old antenna programs don't work well, if at
all. As well as the new ones.

Disclaimer - I have not tried ELNEC yet.

On to an OS low key rant.

I have machines from OS9, a unix style OS for microcomputers (the real one
from Motorola for 68xx and 68xxx CPUs, not Apple) through Win98, 2000, XP
Home/Pro, and some versions of Win7.

And some flavors of linux that most people don't play with because they
require knowledge of the underbelly.

tom
K0TAR

I have Linux on an old machine (P3, 1 GHz, 256M RAM) that really doesn't do
it justice. I was impressed that it recognized almost every USB device I
plugged in, new or old. I really should get a newer machine and load it up
with Ubuntu.

Sal

back and front MALWARE girl
 

On 9/30/2011 1:17 AM, Sal wrote:
wrote in message

I have Linux on an old machine (P3, 1 GHz, 256M RAM) that really doesn't do
it justice. I was impressed that it recognized almost every USB device I
plugged in, new or old. I really should get a newer machine and load it up
with Ubuntu.

Sal



As someone who is a linux bigot (within the linux world, not talking
about other OSs) I finally had to admit that Ubuntu was ok.

But the current release is not.

I would advise you stick to the 10.04LTS (long term support) release.
Ubuntu 11.xx threw out the GNOME desktop and replaced it with rubbish.
I know no one that likes the new desktop that has used the old.

We can only hope that by the time 10.04 is deprecated that GNOME will be
back.

tom
K0TAR

back and front MALWARE girl
 

"tom" wrote in message
. net...

As someone who is a linux bigot (within the linux world, not talking about
other OSs) I finally had to admit that Ubuntu was ok.

But the current release is not.

I would advise you stick to the 10.04LTS (long term support) release.
Ubuntu 11.xx threw out the GNOME desktop and replaced it with rubbish. I
know no one that likes the new desktop that has used the old.

We can only hope that by the time 10.04 is deprecated that GNOME will be
back.

I have 10.04. Having only half the recommended RAM (per stated system
requirements) means I'm flogging the hard drive.

"Sal"

back and front MALWARE girl
 

On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 18:21:44 -0500, tom wrote:

I would advise you stick to the 10.04LTS (long term support) release.
Ubuntu 11.xx threw out the GNOME desktop and replaced it with rubbish.
I know no one that likes the new desktop that has used the old.

We can only hope that by the time 10.04 is deprecated that GNOME will be
back.

tom
K0TAR

The current version allows you to easily revert to the old desktop if
you want. I did. But IMO there is not that much overall OS improvement
to do the upgrade unless you just want to try it which is why I did.

back and front MALWARE girl
 

On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 21:44:52 -0500, tom wrote:

On 9/29/2011 1:20 PM, dave wrote:

I just use Ubuntu and don't worry about it.

I need Win and X windows both.

In Windows I use Firefox with the QuickJava extension. It puts on/off
buttons at the bottom of the browser window that make turning on and
off browser functions (flash, java, javascript, ect) quick and easy.
When exploring I only leave text and images active. If I find a site I
want to chance that needs flash or script I just turn it on and
refresh. It's not foolproof of course but a different approach. And if
I'm just reading text sites (newspaper, forums ect) I leave everything
off but text and images and most of the flashy moving annoying ads
which I hate are disabled which also improves the page loading time a
bunch.

back and front MALWARE girl
 

On Sat, 01 Oct 2011 23:49:22 -0700, AJL wrote:


The current version allows you to easily revert to the old desktop if
you want. I did. But IMO there is not that much overall OS improvement
to do the upgrade unless you just want to try it which is why I did.

11.04 did. 11.10 does not. I'm sticking with 10.04 LTS. The new desktop
is for morons. They are obviously trying to appeal to tablet-brains.

back and front MALWARE girl
 

On Sun, 02 Oct 2011 11:17:56 -0500, dave wrote:

On Sat, 01 Oct 2011 23:49:22 -0700, AJL wrote:


The current version allows you to easily revert to the old desktop if
you want. I did. But IMO there is not that much overall OS improvement
to do the upgrade unless you just want to try it which is why I did.

11.04 did. 11.10 does not. I'm sticking with 10.04 LTS. The new desktop
is for morons. They are obviously trying to appeal to tablet-brains.

Ah, I didn't realize 11.10 was out. My 11.04 is busted in that it
won't update so perhaps I'll take your advice and go with 10.04. Yes I
really tried hard to like that new desktop but just couldn't hack it
(pun intended) in the end... ;)

back and front MALWARE girl
 

On 10/2/2011 2:08 AM, AJL wrote:
On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 21:44:52 -0500, wrote:

On 9/29/2011 1:20 PM, dave wrote:

I just use Ubuntu and don't worry about it.

I need Win and X windows both.

In Windows I use Firefox with the QuickJava extension. It puts on/off
buttons at the bottom of the browser window that make turning on and
off browser functions (flash, java, javascript, ect) quick and easy.
When exploring I only leave text and images active. If I find a site I
want to chance that needs flash or script I just turn it on and
refresh. It's not foolproof of course but a different approach. And if
I'm just reading text sites (newspaper, forums ect) I leave everything
off but text and images and most of the flashy moving annoying ads
which I hate are disabled which also improves the page loading time a
bunch.

Nice. But that has nothing to do with what I was talking about.
Windows is, well, Windows. And X windows is Unix.

Neither have anything to do with browsing per se.

tom
K0TAR

back and front MALWARE girl
 

On Sun, 02 Oct 2011 00:08:41 -0700, AJL wrote:

On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 21:44:52 -0500, tom wrote:

On 9/29/2011 1:20 PM, dave wrote:

I just use Ubuntu and don't worry about it.

I need Win and X windows both.

In Windows I use Firefox with the QuickJava extension. It puts on/off
buttons at the bottom of the browser window that make turning on and off
browser functions (flash, java, javascript, ect) quick and easy. When
exploring I only leave text and images active. If I find a site I want
to chance that needs flash or script I just turn it on and refresh. It's
not foolproof of course but a different approach. And if I'm just
reading text sites (newspaper, forums ect) I leave everything off but
text and images and most of the flashy moving annoying ads which I hate
are disabled which also improves the page loading time a bunch.

That sounds like a lot of work. I try not to take the wed too seriously.
Like everything, it's 95% BS.

[OT] back and front MALWARE girl
 

On Mon, 03 Oct 2011 18:52:17 -0500, tom wrote:
On 10/2/2011 2:08 AM, AJL wrote:
On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 21:44:52 -0500, wrote:
On 9/29/2011 1:20 PM, dave wrote:

I just use Ubuntu and don't worry about it.

I need Win and X windows both.

In Windows I use Firefox with the QuickJava extension. It puts on/off
::yaa-daa yaa-daa yaa-daa snipped

Nice. But that has nothing to do with what I was talking about.
Windows is, well, Windows. And X windows is Unix.

Neither have anything to do with browsing per se.

And ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with rec.radio.amateur.antenna

[OT] back and front MALWARE girl
 

On 10/4/2011 6:02 PM, Allodoxaphobia wrote:
On Mon, 03 Oct 2011 18:52:17 -0500, tom wrote:
On 10/2/2011 2:08 AM, AJL wrote:
On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 21:44:52 -0500, wrote:
On 9/29/2011 1:20 PM, dave wrote:

I just use Ubuntu and don't worry about it.

I need Win and X windows both.

In Windows I use Firefox with the QuickJava extension. It puts on/off
::yaa-daa yaa-daa yaa-daa snipped

Nice. But that has nothing to do with what I was talking about.
Windows is, well, Windows. And X windows is Unix.

Neither have anything to do with browsing per se.

And ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with rec.radio.amateur.antenna

Then delete or plonk.

tom
K0TAR

[OT] back and front MALWARE girl
 

On Tue, 04 Oct 2011 23:02:58 +0000, Allodoxaphobia wrote:


And ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with rec.radio.amateur.antenna

Absolutely?

[OT] back and front MALWARE girl
 

"Allodoxaphobia" wrote in message
g.com...

And ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with rec.radio.amateur.antenna

Not yours to decide.

back and front MALWARE girl
 

On Sun, 02 Oct 2011 11:17:56 -0500, dave wrote:

On Sat, 01 Oct 2011 23:49:22 -0700, AJL wrote:


The current version allows you to easily revert to the old desktop if
you want. I did. But IMO there is not that much overall OS improvement
to do the upgrade unless you just want to try it which is why I did.

11.04 did. 11.10 does not. I'm sticking with 10.04 LTS. The new desktop
is for morons. They are obviously trying to appeal to tablet-brains.

The Unity desktop is usable, but not for me. I don't think it was
designed for tablets. Methinks it was an attempt to use the "extra"
screen space afforded by 16:9 displays. In effect, it leaves the menu
on the left side of the screen most of the time. I switched back to
the older Gnome 2 desktop on 10.04 and am living happily without
Unity.
http://www.geekgumbo.com/2011/05/04/switching-the-unity-desktop-to-the-gnome-desktop/

On Fedora 15, the new and improved Gnome 3 is in my never humble
opinion a step backwards. The designers apparently decided that
configuration options should now be either well hidden, or
intentionally misplaced in non-obvious places. Some of the logic is
amazing. For example, requiring a logout before a restart. Is there
a problem with killing user processes that justifies this?

Meanwhile, KDE 4.6 seems quite good (I haven't used it much) but
really gobbles RAM. I also tried Mac4Lin with 10.04 and had problems.
Oh well.



--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

back and front MALWARE girl
 

On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 04:39:14 -0700, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

On Sun, 02 Oct 2011 11:17:56 -0500, dave wrote:

On Sat, 01 Oct 2011 23:49:22 -0700, AJL wrote:


The current version allows you to easily revert to the old desktop if
you want. I did. But IMO there is not that much overall OS improvement
to do the upgrade unless you just want to try it which is why I did.

11.04 did. 11.10 does not. I'm sticking with 10.04 LTS. The new desktop
is for morons. They are obviously trying to appeal to tablet-brains.

The Unity desktop is usable, but not for me. I don't think it was
designed for tablets. Methinks it was an attempt to use the "extra"
screen space afforded by 16:9 displays. In effect, it leaves the menu
on the left side of the screen most of the time. I switched back to the
older Gnome 2 desktop on 10.04 and am living happily without Unity.
http://www.geekgumbo.com/2011/05/04/...esktop-to-the-
gnome-desktop/

On Fedora 15, the new and improved Gnome 3 is in my never humble opinion
a step backwards. The designers apparently decided that configuration
options should now be either well hidden, or intentionally misplaced in
non-obvious places. Some of the logic is amazing. For example,
requiring a logout before a restart. Is there a problem with killing
user processes that justifies this?

Meanwhile, KDE 4.6 seems quite good (I haven't used it much) but really
gobbles RAM. I also tried Mac4Lin with 10.04 and had problems. Oh well.

At least we're not spending $160 for the privilege of BSODs! I like Puppy
Linux, which I believe is GTK on top of Ubuntu. Not pretty but incredibly
responsive. Will run on anything from first gen Pentium.

back and front MALWARE girl
 

On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 07:35:02 -0500, dave wrote:

At least we're not spending $160 for the privilege of BSODs! I like Puppy
Linux, which I believe is GTK on top of Ubuntu. Not pretty but incredibly
responsive. Will run on anything from first gen Pentium.

I haven't seen many BSOD's on Windoze boxes in maybe 10 years. The
only time I see them is when I'm playing with drivers or when I'm
trying to untrash the filesystem. I look at it differently. $160 is
a bit over 2 hours of my billable labor rate. If Windoze saves me 2
hours of time, I break even.

I think the desktop manager in Puppy Linux is JWM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JWM
apparently on top of Ubuntu.
http://www.desktoplinux.com/news/NS5855706811.html

I like AntiX for small footprint machines.
http://antix.mepis.org
PII with 128MB is about the minimum usable config although it will
allegedly run on older CPU's with 64MB.

Features and functions get added faster than bugs get fixed. The end
result is a bloated and buggy machine, full of useless features, that
runs at the speed of a snail. This applies to Linux distro as well as
Windoze and OS/X. "Bigger, Better, Faster.... pick any two".

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

back and front MALWARE girl
 

On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 09:59:44 -0700, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 07:35:02 -0500, dave wrote:

At least we're not spending $160 for the privilege of BSODs! I like
Puppy Linux, which I believe is GTK on top of Ubuntu. Not pretty but
incredibly responsive. Will run on anything from first gen Pentium.

I haven't seen many BSOD's on Windoze boxes in maybe 10 years. The only
time I see them is when I'm playing with drivers or when I'm trying to
untrash the filesystem. I look at it differently. $160 is a bit over 2
hours of my billable labor rate. If Windoze saves me 2 hours of time, I
break even.

I think the desktop manager in Puppy Linux is JWM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JWM
apparently on top of Ubuntu.
http://www.desktoplinux.com/news/NS5855706811.html

I like AntiX for small footprint machines. http://antix.mepis.org
PII with 128MB is about the minimum usable config although it will
allegedly run on older CPU's with 64MB.

Features and functions get added faster than bugs get fixed. The end
result is a bloated and buggy machine, full of useless features, that
runs at the speed of a snail. This applies to Linux distro as well as
Windoze and OS/X. "Bigger, Better, Faster.... pick any two".

You can run J Window Manager or GTK at the click of the mouse and a
restart of X Windows. If someone wants me to do Windows things they have
to give me a Windows box to do them on. I have an Atom netbook with XP I
use to feed my iPod. None of my ham radio stuff requires Windows. None of
my audio production requires Windows.

I use "BSODs" generically for any unrecoverable error that the 3 Finger
Mickey (or "Kill") won't fix.

back and front MALWARE girl
 

On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 12:08:26 -0500, dave wrote:

I use "BSODs" generically for any unrecoverable error that the 3 Finger
Mickey (or "Kill") won't fix.

Well, since you haven't been using Windoze much, you probably haven't
had much experience with its stability. In my day job, I fix
computahs, mostly running various Windoze mutations. I get very few
unrecoverable errors, hung processes, comatose peripherals, or general
weirdness, if the machine is in fairly good shape. No points for
static electricity fried RAM, overheating CPU's (AMD early Athelon),
buggy apps that won't die (Acrobat Reader 10.x and Skype), overly
aggressive backup programs (Memeo), or various sync programs that
fumble over their own semaphores (iTunes, MS ActiveSync). If I try
hard, I can hang a Windoze box running any of the aforementioned. If
I run alternatives, or run them in a VM sandbox, no problem. If
uptime is your standard for reliability, then I can offer several
weather stations running Windoze 2000 that typically stay up for
months. For my personal assortment of machines, I only reboot after
an update, or after a sufficiently large number of config changes to
make sure I still have a working system. When a customer drags in a
system that is acting "erratic" and tends to hang, it's usually either
malware or the all too common bulging capacitor problem. Cleaning up
the malware and replacing the bulging caps usually stabilizes the
system. Incidentally, I only reinstall windoze from scratch if the
malware has made such a mess that it would take me longer to fix than
to reinstall.



--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558
# http://802.11junk.com
# http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS

back and front MALWARE girl
 

On 10/5/2011 11:59 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 07:35:02 -0500, wrote:

At least we're not spending $160 for the privilege of BSODs! I like Puppy
Linux, which I believe is GTK on top of Ubuntu. Not pretty but incredibly
responsive. Will run on anything from first gen Pentium.

I haven't seen many BSOD's on Windoze boxes in maybe 10 years. The
only time I see them is when I'm playing with drivers or when I'm
trying to untrash the filesystem. I look at it differently. $160 is
a bit over 2 hours of my billable labor rate. If Windoze saves me 2
hours of time, I break even.


Unless that sentences you to lots more hours later. Then you cost
yourself. Beware the easy path. Or at least research it.

I have to say the front end investment on Linux has been proven to be a
better investment than Windows "ease of install" and nasty programming
environment. For instance dot net does seem to leak.

Been there, worked all sides of the argument including Apple and I'll
take Linux and Apple in that order.

tom
K0TAR

back and front MALWARE girl
 

On 10/5/2011 9:56 PM, tom wrote:
I have to say the front end investment on Linux has been proven to be a
better investment than Windows "ease of install" and nasty programming
environment. For instance dot net does seem to leak.


Actually I misspoke there. I have hard evidence that some parts of dot
net leak. We are fighting a nasty problem at work because of that.

Managed code is not all it's cracked up to be. Especially when from
certain software houses.

tom
K0TAR

back and front MALWARE girl
 

On 10/5/2011 10:26 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 12:08:26 -0500, wrote:

I use "BSODs" generically for any unrecoverable error that the 3 Finger
Mickey (or "Kill") won't fix.

Well, since you haven't been using Windoze much, you probably haven't
had much experience with its stability. In my day job, I fix
computahs, mostly running various Windoze mutations. I get very few
unrecoverable errors, hung processes, comatose peripherals, or general
weirdness, if the machine is in fairly good shape. No points for
static electricity fried RAM, overheating CPU's (AMD early Athelon),
buggy apps that won't die (Acrobat Reader 10.x and Skype), overly
aggressive backup programs (Memeo), or various sync programs that
fumble over their own semaphores (iTunes, MS ActiveSync). If I try
hard, I can hang a Windoze box running any of the aforementioned. If
I run alternatives, or run them in a VM sandbox, no problem. If
uptime is your standard for reliability, then I can offer several
weather stations running Windoze 2000 that typically stay up for
months. For my personal assortment of machines, I only reboot after
an update, or after a sufficiently large number of config changes to
make sure I still have a working system. When a customer drags in a
system that is acting "erratic" and tends to hang, it's usually either
malware or the all too common bulging capacitor problem. Cleaning up
the malware and replacing the bulging caps usually stabilizes the
system. Incidentally, I only reinstall windoze from scratch if the
malware has made such a mess that it would take me longer to fix than
to reinstall.

Funny, but my experience has been a lot different. Every month after
Patch Tuesday, the phone lines would light up, as people's computers
would stop working, or specific programs would stop. Some times it was
because Microsoft would turn off something that was supposed to be a
security problem, which just happened to be a needed feature for a
program. I had one computer that every time it reached a certain place
in the upgrade cycle, it would hose the OS, requiring a reinstall. Had
to take a perfectly good computer off line. Even aside from instability
issues - and a computer that might work one day, and not the next for no
good reason is unstable - there were issues like killing DVD codec for
Windows media player. Yeah nothing like a serving of ****ed off users
wondering why they couldn't play that demo DVD at their important meeting.

The fact is, my Windows computers had one problem after the other, while
my Mac's just tended to chug along, and their users said we could take
them from them after prying their cold dead fingers off them. Same for
me. I supported Windows, I did as much of my work as possible on the Mac.

There was 1 (one) case where an update made a problem for the mac users.

Windows? Couldn't even count.

Now that I'm retired, I will only be doing computer support for my
family, and as my Windows Desktop just died last week, I'm going to be
replacing it with a yummy 27 inch IMac, and the laptops will all be
running Linux.

Free at last! Thank God Almighty, I'm free at last!

All apologies to MLK

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

back and front MALWARE girl
 

On Thu, 06 Oct 2011 21:18:39 -0400, Michael Coslo
wrote:

On 10/5/2011 10:26 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
Cleaning up
the malware and replacing the bulging caps usually stabilizes the
system.

it would hose the OS, requiring a reinstall. Had
to take a perfectly good computer off line.

From "The IT Crowd" (a British TV comedy program):
(answering a ringing telephone in the shop - without pause for a
Hello)
"Have you tried turning it off and back on?"
....
"Is it plugged in?"

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

back and front MALWARE girl
 

On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 21:56:11 -0500, tom wrote:

Unless that sentences you to lots more hours later. Then you cost
yourself. Beware the easy path. Or at least research it.

Not my pain or my decision. My customers are the Windoze users. I
also have a few Linux users. Mostly they run Linux servers and a few
desktops. In almost all cases, the decision of the OS is made by the
applications vendors or whatever apps the hired help is familiar with
using. I have little say in the matter.

One of my bad jokes is that I would be out of business if Microsoft
had done a better job. There's quite a bit of truth to that.

I have to say the front end investment on Linux has been proven to be a
better investment than Windows "ease of install" and nasty programming
environment. For instance dot net does seem to leak.

I'm not a programmer, and therefore not qualified to comment on the
relative merits of programming environments. However, I have had to
deal with the multiple mutations of dot.nyet. It sucks. It's quite
common to have to uninstall all 4 mutations of dot.nyet, with a 3rd
party app, and reinstall the whole mess from scratch. I also have a
suspicion that dot.net is responsible for some bizarre application
crashes. I've seen memory leaks, but they seem to be coming from the
apps, not the libraries.

Been there, worked all sides of the argument including Apple and I'll
take Linux and Apple in that order.

I prefer Windoze, Linux, and Apple, in that order. My choice has
nothing to do with the quality of the product. It's in order of which
OS will make me money, and continue to support my decadent and lavish
lifestyle. Windoze needs help, I provide help, and therefore I make
money. At the other end, Apple users assume that if anything goes
wrong, it must be their own fault, and not that of the OS or apps.
They'll only ask for help if they're really desperate. Since I'm not
Apple approved, blessed, and authorized, I can buy parts or get inside
info. I'm also competing with AppleCare. Linux is a mix of the two.
Setting up complex SNMP monitoring and performance tuning is what pays
the bills. Dealing with hardware incompatibilities, is another Linux
favorite.

tom
K0TAR

--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558
# http://802.11junk.com
# http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS

back and front MALWARE girl
 

On 10/7/2011 4:26 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

I'm not a programmer, and therefore not qualified to comment on the
relative merits of programming environments. However, I have had to
deal with the multiple mutations of dot.nyet. It sucks. It's quite
common to have to uninstall all 4 mutations of dot.nyet, with a 3rd
party app, and reinstall the whole mess from scratch. I also have a
suspicion that dot.net is responsible for some bizarre application
crashes. I've seen memory leaks, but they seem to be coming from the
apps, not the libraries.

And I can't say any more. Wouldn't be prudent.

tom
K0TAR

back and front MALWARE girl
 

On 10/7/2011 5:26 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

One of my bad jokes is that I would be out of business if Microsoft
had done a better job. There's quite a bit of truth to that.

It's 100 percent true. An Apple costs more than a Windows computer -
although not all that much when comparable performance is taken into
account, because the Apple mentality does not sell computers that are
ready to be obsolete, such as the horribly underpowered Vista basic
machines. But I digress. The people who own Windows computers that I
work on manage to feel that they have gotten a better and cheaper deal,
when in fact, by the time they have paid me for a few fixes, they have
surpassed the cost of "That pricey Apple computer". They also tend to
quote the price of some half a$$ed cheap PC and something like the 27
inch i7 iMac when comparing prices. Check ot the high end Sony all in
one, then we can talk about prices in more of an apple to apple fashion
8^) (not that you've complained about Apple prices AFAIK.

In in the professional world, no one seems to add the labor cost of the
armies of support personnel needed to keep the Windows machines running.
Adds a tad to the price.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

back and front MALWARE girl
 

On Sun, 09 Oct 2011 22:00:38 -0400, Michael Coslo
wrote:

An Apple costs more than a Windows computer -
although not all that much when comparable performance is taken into
account,

I beg to differ. In 2009, I went through some effort to compare Dell
and Apple computahs selling just before Christmas time:
http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/Mac-vs-PC.xls
Only the 13" MacBook was fairly competative with the equivalent Dell.
In all other cases, Apple was twice as expensive as Dell. I went
through considerable effort to get all the hardware as identical as
possible, but there are some discrepancies. The big one is that the
cost of the firewire port is not included in the PC pricing, because
few PC's actually use firewire. I plan to bring the spreadsheet up to
date sometime in November, when Christmas prices and goodies appear.

because the Apple mentality does not sell computers that are
ready to be obsolete, such as the horribly underpowered Vista basic
machines.

Interesting. My customers problems seem to revolve around hardware
and software that was insufficiently tested and is therefore infested
with bugs. The problem is not that either was obsolete. It was that
they were permaturely released. Since whomever makes it to market
first usually wins, it's understandable.

But I digress. The people who own Windows computers that I
work on manage to feel that they have gotten a better and cheaper deal,
when in fact, by the time they have paid me for a few fixes, they have
surpassed the cost of "That pricey Apple computer". They also tend to
quote the price of some half a$$ed cheap PC and something like the 27
inch i7 iMac when comparing prices. Check ot the high end Sony all in
one, then we can talk about prices in more of an apple to apple fashion
8^) (not that you've complained about Apple prices AFAIK.

Well, you're entitled to your opinion. I don't consider paying for
repairs in advance in the form of AppleCare as a great improvement.
I'll be sure to include the 27" iMac in my comparison, but it might
not be against an overpriced Sony. Nobody else has a 27" so I'll
compare the smaller screens. Very roughly, the Apple 21.5" iMac
starts at $1200. The Dell Inspiron 2320 all-in-one with a 23" screen
starts at $950.

In in the professional world, no one seems to add the labor cost of the
armies of support personnel needed to keep the Windows machines running.
Adds a tad to the price.

I don't have much contact with IT except when they get into trouble.
As far as I can determine, most of IT consists of supporting users,
not machines. As near as I can determine, the level of user support
is about equal, whether Windoze, Mac, or Linux.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -


--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

back and front MALWARE girl
 

Michael Coslo wrote:
It's 100 percent true. An Apple costs more than a Windows computer -
although not all that much when comparable performance is taken into
account, because the Apple mentality does not sell computers that are
ready to be obsolete, such as the horribly underpowered Vista basic
machines.

I'm not that sure about that. At work we still have Windows XP machines
bought in 2001, and while they are very slow they still work and can
be used e.g. as Citrix terminals or for Microsoft Office 2003.

They still receive security updates from Microsoft.

Apple machines from that era are long obsolete and receive no support
at all.

back and front MALWARE girl
 

On 10/9/2011 10:39 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 09 Oct 2011 22:00:38 -0400, Michael
wrote:

An Apple costs more than a Windows computer -
although not all that much when comparable performance is taken into
account,

I beg to differ. In 2009, I went through some effort to compare Dell
and Apple computahs selling just before Christmas time:


I looked at the all in one's. Dell doesn't even sell an i7, or even an
i5 Biggest they have is an i3, Don't have a 27 inch monnitor, don't have
a 1 TB hard drive. In addition the all in one Mac's have non-laptop
components.

That's the issue I was referring to, Jeff. the Mac is called "too
expensive", and it is compared to a machine that doesn't exist, so a
cheaper machine is trotted out as a comparison.

So yes, the Mac is a whole lot more expensive than a machine that is a
whole lot less capable. And infinitely more expensive than a machine
that doesn't exist.

As I said, the closest thing I found is a Sony, and it's over 2K for a
much smaller screen. Do not want.

The big one is that the
cost of the firewire port is not included in the PC pricing, because
few PC's actually use firewire. I plan to bring the spreadsheet up to
date sometime in November, when Christmas prices and goodies appear.

I do use firewire. And will use Thunderbolt. Check out the specs vs USB3.


because the Apple mentality does not sell computers that are
ready to be obsolete, such as the horribly underpowered Vista basic
machines.

Interesting. My customers problems seem to revolve around hardware
and software that was insufficiently tested and is therefore infested
with bugs. The problem is not that either was obsolete. It was that
they were permaturely released. Since whomever makes it to market
first usually wins, it's understandable.

Mine tend to revolve around security issues, and updates that turn off
needed functions to "enhance" security. As I joke with them, I note that
the most secure computer is one that doesn't work any more.


But I digress. The people who own Windows computers that I
work on manage to feel that they have gotten a better and cheaper deal,
when in fact, by the time they have paid me for a few fixes, they have
surpassed the cost of "That pricey Apple computer". They also tend to
quote the price of some half a$$ed cheap PC and something like the 27
inch i7 iMac when comparing prices. Check ot the high end Sony all in
one, then we can talk about prices in more of an apple to apple fashion
8^) (not that you've complained about Apple prices AFAIK.


Well, you're entitled to your opinion. I don't consider paying for
repairs in advance in the form of AppleCare as a great improvement.

Don't use Applecare, and don't need it. The one issue with the bad
Rubycon caps a few years back was taken care of via recall. And that hit
many manufacturers, Dell included. I did have a server power supply go
bad once. Haven't counted the PC machines.



I'll be sure to include the 27" iMac in my comparison, but it might
not be against an overpriced Sony. Nobody else has a 27" so I'll
compare the smaller screens. Very roughly, the Apple 21.5" iMac
starts at $1200. The Dell Inspiron 2320 all-in-one with a 23" screen
starts at $950.

And there we go. I use a 27 inch Imac at work, and I don't want
another dinky screen.

As far as my outside computer support goes, I can make up that
difference in a short time. A couple service calls, and they might as
well spent the extra money on the Mac.

Or they can try the Geek Squad.


In in the professional world, no one seems to add the labor cost of the
armies of support personnel needed to keep the Windows machines running.
Adds a tad to the price.

I don't have much contact with IT except when they get into trouble.
As far as I can determine, most of IT consists of supporting users,
not machines. As near as I can determine, the level of user support
is about equal, whether Windoze, Mac, or Linux.

Windows and Mac. Windows is around 95 percent of the work. The biggest
problem on the Mac side is the permissions, a side effect of switching
to a Unix based system. If not for the Windows support, I wouldn't do
support at all (permission fixes take mere seconds. Weird situation,
since I'm actually a videographer.

but yeah, I'm entitled to my opinion, and you are entitled to yours. If
you want to compare lesser Windows machines to Mac's have at it.

I do have the experience of working a lot with both types - actually
Linux too, but only at home. A lot. 8 hours a day with the Mac, maybe 6
a day with Windows. I don't dislike one or another, but I do put a
premium on the thing working. My Mac's work a whole lot more, and allow
me to meet my deadlines much better than the Windows machines. And that
part is fact, not opinion.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

back and front MALWARE girl
 

On 10/10/2011 5:17 AM, Rob wrote:
Michael wrote:
It's 100 percent true. An Apple costs more than a Windows computer -
although not all that much when comparable performance is taken into
account, because the Apple mentality does not sell computers that are
ready to be obsolete, such as the horribly underpowered Vista basic
machines.

I'm not that sure about that. At work we still have Windows XP machines
bought in 2001, and while they are very slow they still work and can
be used e.g. as Citrix terminals or for Microsoft Office 2003.

They still receive security updates from Microsoft.

Apple machines from that era are long obsolete and receive no support
at all.


Don't think I was arguing about that. If you can run XP on the computer,
M$ will send updates. Be careful though. I had a HP Pavilion, bought in
2005, and at one particular point in the update process, it gets hosed.
I ended up having to take it offline after the third time it happened.

My G5 machines still get updates.

Look, if you want, use the Windows machines. I don't really care. I do
have in depth personal experience with both, and if my job was to
support the Mac's I'd be out of a job. With the Windows machines, there
is a lot of job security. Believe or do not believe.

My favorite part of working with the Windows fans is when I talk about
someone getting a virus, or an update hosing their machine, the first
thing they say is "Oh, I've never gotten a virus, then they go on to
describe "there was this one time" and tell about how they got some
virus that they had to wipe the drive to cure (or somesuch)

If you are happy with Windows, and it never gives you any problems, then
by all means use and enjoy.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

back and front MALWARE girl
 

On 10/9/2011 9:39 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 09 Oct 2011 22:00:38 -0400, Michael
wrote:
In in the professional world, no one seems to add the labor cost of the
armies of support personnel needed to keep the Windows machines running.
Adds a tad to the price.

I don't have much contact with IT except when they get into trouble.
As far as I can determine, most of IT consists of supporting users,
not machines. As near as I can determine, the level of user support
is about equal, whether Windoze, Mac, or Linux.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -


The support costs I've noticed, starting with IBM 360/65 (1973), are
people followed by people followed by people. Somewhere below the
people is hardware.

Been in the middle of it since 1975 starting as a programming assistant
in a college data center. Where we presented decks to the priests.

As a programming assistant the most frequent things I saw were questions
from the grad students like - "How do I make it fit?", "How do I make it
fast?", "Why doesn't it work?". Users who would spend 18 hours a day
dug into the math of what they were trying to solve, but refused to
spend 4 hours once learning the tool they used to solve the simulations.

I knew nothing of what they were trying to prove. But I always managed
to get the programs to fit, run fast as possible, and not "doesn't work".

Some things never change.

tom
K0TAR

Disclaimer - this comment is about academics and offices, not data centers.