Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #159654 > unrolled thread

Windows 10 forceful update?

Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers

Contents

  Windows 10 forceful update? "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-02-18 11:25 +0000
    Re: Windows 10 forceful update? Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> - 2016-02-18 11:52 +0000
      Re: Windows 10 forceful update? "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-02-18 12:16 +0000
      Re: Windows 10 forceful update? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 10:27 -0600
        Re: Windows 10 forceful update? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-02-18 11:51 -0500
          Re: Windows 10 forceful update? "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 05:42 +1100
    Re: Windows 10 forceful update? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-18 11:31 +0000
      Re: Windows 10 forceful update? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-02-18 12:01 +0000
        Re: Windows 10 forceful update? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-18 16:04 +0000
      Re: Windows 10 forceful update? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 18:02 -0500
    Re: Windows 10 forceful update? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-02-18 09:18 -0500
      Re: Windows 10 forceful update? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-18 16:43 +0100
        Re: Windows 10 forceful update? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-02-18 11:49 -0500
          Re: Windows 10 forceful update? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-18 21:49 +0100
            Re: Windows 10 forceful update? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-02-18 19:53 -0500
              Re: Windows 10 forceful update? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-19 10:27 +0100
    Re: Windows 10 forceful update? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-18 09:08 -0700
      Re: Windows 10 forceful update? Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-02-18 11:50 -0600
    Re: Windows 10 forceful update? Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-02-18 11:52 -0600
      Re: Windows 10 forceful update? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-19 14:04 +0000
        Re: Windows 10 forceful update? Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-02-19 15:32 +0100
          Re: Windows 10 forceful update? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-02-19 10:19 -0500
            Re: Windows 10 forceful update? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-19 17:40 +0000
              Re: Windows 10 forceful update? Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-02-19 19:01 +0100
              Re: Windows 10 forceful update? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-02-19 11:30 -0800
        Re: Windows 10 forceful update? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-19 14:57 +0000
        Re: Windows 10 forceful update? Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> - 2016-02-19 15:51 +0000
          Re: Windows 10 forceful update? Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-02-19 18:42 +0100
            Re: Windows 10 forceful update? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-19 13:56 -0600
              Re: Windows 10 forceful update? Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-02-19 23:57 +0100
                Re: Windows 10 forceful update? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-19 15:17 -0800
                  Re: Windows 10 forceful update? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-02-19 18:27 -0500
                  Re: Windows 10 forceful update? Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-02-20 00:38 +0100
                  Re: Windows 10 forceful update? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-02-19 19:41 -0600
                    Re: Windows 10 forceful update? "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 14:46 +1100
                    Re: Windows 10 forceful update? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-20 15:18 +0000
                      Re: Windows 10 forceful update? "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 03:32 +1100
                        Re: Windows 10 forceful update? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-20 19:38 +0100
                          Re: Windows 10 forceful update? "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 06:04 +1100
                  Re: Windows 10 forceful update? "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 14:29 +1100
                  Re: Windows 10 forceful update? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-20 06:35 +0000
                  Re: Windows 10 forceful update? Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2016-02-20 13:54 -0500
                    Re: Windows 10 forceful update? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-20 20:51 -0800
                      Re: Windows 10 forceful update? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-21 13:43 +0000
            Re: Windows 10 forceful update? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-20 09:59 +0000
              Re: Windows 10 forceful update? Bob Martin <bob.martin@excite.com> - 2016-02-21 07:46 +0000
                Re: Windows 10 forceful update? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-21 13:42 +0000
                  Re: Windows 10 forceful update? Bob Martin <bob.martin@excite.com> - 2016-02-22 07:12 +0000
                    Re: Windows 10 forceful update? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-22 14:27 +0000
                Re: Windows 10 forceful update? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-21 16:43 +0100
                Re: Windows 10 forceful update? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-02-21 11:52 -0800
                  Re: Windows 10 forceful update? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-22 11:34 -0800
                    Re: Windows 10 forceful update? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-02-22 12:40 -0800
    Re: Windows 10 forceful update? "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 05:47 +1100
    Re: Windows 10 forceful update? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-18 16:20 -0800
      Re: Windows 10 forceful update? "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 13:35 +1100
        Re: Windows 10 forceful update? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-18 20:43 -0800
          Re: Windows 10 forceful update? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 05:53 -0500
          Re: Windows 10 forceful update? "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 04:28 +1100
      Re: Windows 10 forceful update? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-19 10:17 +0100
    Re: Windows 10 forceful update? Jan van den Broek <fortytwo@xs4all.nl> - 2016-02-19 10:06 +0100

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

#159796

On 19 Feb 2016 14:04:44 GMT
Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:

> On 2016-02-18, Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> wrote:
> > gareth wrote:
> >  
> >> Will the attempted forceful update of Windows 10 sound the
> >> death-knell for MicroSoft and drive all reasonable people onto
> >> Linux?  
> > Actually, I'm not totally in favor of that.  If everybody ran
> > Linux, then the script kiddies would start developing nasty malware
> > for it.  yes, it would be harder, but if they try hard enough, they
> > would find the vulnerabilities.  
> 
> The problem with that argument is that there are some very juicy
> Linux targets out there.  Your bank (and for that matter, everyone
> else's bank) for example. And yet, Linux malware is thin on the
> ground.
> 
> 
> 

I have yet to see Linux binaries offered to download and execute.
No one really bothers with that.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#159801

Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> writes:

> On 19 Feb 2016 14:04:44 GMT
> Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 2016-02-18, Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> wrote:
>> > gareth wrote:
>> >  
>> >> Will the attempted forceful update of Windows 10 sound the
>> >> death-knell for MicroSoft and drive all reasonable people onto
>> >> Linux?  
>> > Actually, I'm not totally in favor of that.  If everybody ran
>> > Linux, then the script kiddies would start developing nasty malware
>> > for it.  yes, it would be harder, but if they try hard enough, they
>> > would find the vulnerabilities.  
>> 
>> The problem with that argument is that there are some very juicy
>> Linux targets out there.  Your bank (and for that matter, everyone
>> else's bank) for example. And yet, Linux malware is thin on the
>> ground.
>
> I have yet to see Linux binaries offered to download and execute.
> No one really bothers with that.

Partly because you can find almost everything you might want
in the repositories.  At least that's been my experience.

-- 
Dan Espen

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#159820

On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 10:19:35 -0500
Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> wrote:

> Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> writes:
> 
> > On 19 Feb 2016 14:04:44 GMT
> > Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2016-02-18, Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> wrote:
> >> > gareth wrote:
> >> >  
> >> >> Will the attempted forceful update of Windows 10 sound the
> >> >> death-knell for MicroSoft and drive all reasonable people onto
> >> >> Linux?  
> >> > Actually, I'm not totally in favor of that.  If everybody ran
> >> > Linux, then the script kiddies would start developing nasty malware
> >> > for it.  yes, it would be harder, but if they try hard enough, they
> >> > would find the vulnerabilities.  
> >> 
> >> The problem with that argument is that there are some very juicy
> >> Linux targets out there.  Your bank (and for that matter, everyone
> >> else's bank) for example. And yet, Linux malware is thin on the
> >> ground.
> >
> > I have yet to see Linux binaries offered to download and execute.
> > No one really bothers with that.
> 
> Partly because you can find almost everything you might want
> in the repositories.  At least that's been my experience.

	I did download drivers for my Brother printer from their site,
commercial linux software seems to be mostly download and activate but
certainly compared to the downloadable crud for Windows there's very little
and what there is tends to be high quality.

-- 
Steve O'Hara-Smith                          |   Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN                                      | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins.                |    licences available see
You lose and Bill collects.                 |    http://www.sohara.org/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#159822

On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 17:40:12 +0000
Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:

> On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 10:19:35 -0500
> Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> wrote:
> 
> > Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> writes:
> >   
> > > On 19 Feb 2016 14:04:44 GMT
> > > Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
> > >  
> > >> On 2016-02-18, Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> wrote:  
> > >> > gareth wrote:
> > >> >    
> > >> >> Will the attempted forceful update of Windows 10 sound the
> > >> >> death-knell for MicroSoft and drive all reasonable people onto
> > >> >> Linux?    
> > >> > Actually, I'm not totally in favor of that.  If everybody ran
> > >> > Linux, then the script kiddies would start developing nasty
> > >> > malware for it.  yes, it would be harder, but if they try hard
> > >> > enough, they would find the vulnerabilities.    
> > >> 
> > >> The problem with that argument is that there are some very juicy
> > >> Linux targets out there.  Your bank (and for that matter,
> > >> everyone else's bank) for example. And yet, Linux malware is
> > >> thin on the ground.  
> > >
> > > I have yet to see Linux binaries offered to download and execute.
> > > No one really bothers with that.  
> > 
> > Partly because you can find almost everything you might want
> > in the repositories.  At least that's been my experience.  
> 
> 	I did download drivers for my Brother printer from their site,
> commercial linux software seems to be mostly download and activate but
> certainly compared to the downloadable crud for Windows there's very
> little and what there is tends to be high quality.
> 

I thought about malware ;) I mean site you goto that offers some binary
to download.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#159842

Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> writes:
> 	I did download drivers for my Brother printer from their site,
> commercial linux software seems to be mostly download and activate but
> certainly compared to the downloadable crud for Windows there's very little
> and what there is tends to be high quality.

i recently got new epson scanner and downloaded the drivers ... but my
linux software didn't have some features that the apple scanning
software has (place multiple negatives on the scanner, automatically
recognize the different negatives and split into different image
files). however, the apple software on cdrom that came with the scanner
wouldn't work, so he had to download the latest version anyway.

-- 
virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#159799

On 19 Feb 2016 14:04:44 GMT
Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:

> On 2016-02-18, Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> wrote:
> > gareth wrote:
> >
> >> Will the attempted forceful update of Windows 10 sound the death-knell
> >> for MicroSoft and drive all reasonable people onto Linux?
> > Actually, I'm not totally in favor of that.  If everybody ran Linux,
> > then the script kiddies would start developing nasty malware for it.
> > yes, it would be harder, but if they try hard enough, they would find
> > the vulnerabilities.
> 
> The problem with that argument is that there are some very juicy Linux
> targets out there.  Your bank (and for that matter, everyone else's bank)
> for example. And yet, Linux malware is thin on the ground.

	Also there are quite a few smartphones and tablets using a linux
kernel that don't seem to be getting much malware (not counting the stuff
willingly installed that openly admits it wants access to everything).

-- 
Steve O'Hara-Smith                          |   Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN                                      | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins.                |    licences available see
You lose and Bill collects.                 |    http://www.sohara.org/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#159805

On 19 Feb 2016 14:04:44 GMT, Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:

>On 2016-02-18, Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> wrote:
>> gareth wrote:
>>
>>> Will the attempted forceful update of Windows 10 sound the death-knell
>>> for MicroSoft and drive all reasonable people onto Linux?
>> Actually, I'm not totally in favor of that.  If everybody ran Linux, then 
>> the script kiddies would start developing nasty malware for it.  yes, it 
>> would be harder, but if they try hard enough, they would find the 
>> vulnerabilities.
>
>The problem with that argument is that there are some very juicy Linux targets out there.  Your bank (and for that matter, everyone else's bank) for example. And yet, Linux malware is thin on the ground.

My bank does not use Linux. They don't use Windows either. 
My wifes bank was fined £56m when it's Linux based system failed in
2012. It was an upgrade rolled out without testing it adequately. 

Steve

-- 
Neural Network Software for Windows                 http://www.npsnn.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#159815

On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 15:51:28 +0000
Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> wrote:

> On 19 Feb 2016 14:04:44 GMT, Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
> 
> >On 2016-02-18, Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> wrote:  
> >> gareth wrote:
> >>  
> >>> Will the attempted forceful update of Windows 10 sound the
> >>> death-knell for MicroSoft and drive all reasonable people onto
> >>> Linux?  
> >> Actually, I'm not totally in favor of that.  If everybody ran
> >> Linux, then the script kiddies would start developing nasty
> >> malware for it.  yes, it would be harder, but if they try hard
> >> enough, they would find the vulnerabilities.  
> >
> >The problem with that argument is that there are some very juicy
> >Linux targets out there.  Your bank (and for that matter, everyone
> >else's bank) for example. And yet, Linux malware is thin on the
> >ground.  
> 
> My bank does not use Linux. They don't use Windows either. 

Oracle+Solaris, that is what banks use...

> My wifes bank was fined £56m when it's Linux based system failed in
> 2012. It was an upgrade rolled out without testing it adequately. 

Hahah, they didn't use RHEL don't they ;p

> 
> Steve
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#159847

On 19-Feb-16 11:42, Melzzzzz wrote:
> Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> wrote:
>> Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>>> The problem with that argument is that there are some very juicy 
>>> Linux targets out there.  Your bank (and for that matter,
>>> everyone else's bank) for example. And yet, Linux malware is thin
>>> on the ground.
>> 
>> My bank does not use Linux. They don't use Windows either.
> 
> Oracle+Solaris, that is what banks use...

Enterprises get the Microsoft backoffice stuff "for free" as a side
effect of all their Windows desktop licenses, which essentially locks
out everything except OSS--unless neither can provide the scalability
and reliability required .  That essentially destroyed the market for
shrinkwrapped backoffice software.

Oracle, IBM, SAP, etc. do very well building customized backoffice
solutions, but it's a niche market; few companies can afford such _on
top of_ what they're already forced to pay Microsoft.

However, think about what happens to this market if business apps move
to the Web and customers no longer need Windows on the desktop...

S

-- 
Stephen Sprunk         "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723         "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS        dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#159856

On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 13:56:45 -0600
Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote:

> On 19-Feb-16 11:42, Melzzzzz wrote:
> > Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> wrote:  
> >> Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:  
> >>> The problem with that argument is that there are some very juicy 
> >>> Linux targets out there.  Your bank (and for that matter,
> >>> everyone else's bank) for example. And yet, Linux malware is thin
> >>> on the ground.  
> >> 
> >> My bank does not use Linux. They don't use Windows either.  
> > 
> > Oracle+Solaris, that is what banks use...  
> 
> Enterprises get the Microsoft backoffice stuff "for free" as a side
> effect of all their Windows desktop licenses, which essentially locks
> out everything except OSS--unless neither can provide the scalability
> and reliability required .  That essentially destroyed the market for
> shrinkwrapped backoffice software.
> 
> Oracle, IBM, SAP, etc. do very well building customized backoffice
> solutions, but it's a niche market; few companies can afford such _on
> top of_ what they're already forced to pay Microsoft.
> 
> However, think about what happens to this market if business apps move
> to the Web and customers no longer need Windows on the desktop...

Hm, recently Raiffeisen bank in my country sent a warning to customers,
not to use Windows when accessing their bank account.

> 
> S
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#159862

On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 3:57:17 PM UTC-7, Melzzzzz wrote:

> Hm, recently Raiffeisen bank in my country sent a warning to customers,
> not to use Windows when accessing their bank account.

That would seem very strange. That is tantamount to telling people not to use a computer to access their bank account.

Not that Windows isn't hopelessly insecure. But not using Windows is not really a feasible answer, instead some technical solution is needed.

John Savard

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#159864

Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> writes:

> On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 3:57:17 PM UTC-7, Melzzzzz wrote:
>
>> Hm, recently Raiffeisen bank in my country sent a warning to customers,
>> not to use Windows when accessing their bank account.
>
> That would seem very strange. That is tantamount to telling people not to use a computer to access their bank account.
>
> Not that Windows isn't hopelessly insecure. But not using Windows is
> not really a feasible answer, instead some technical solution is
> needed.

AAPL?

The bank and I are on the same wavelength.
I don't consider Windows secure or securable.


-- 
Dan Espen

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#159865

On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 15:17:05 -0800 (PST)
Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

> On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 3:57:17 PM UTC-7, Melzzzzz wrote:
> 
> > Hm, recently Raiffeisen bank in my country sent a warning to
> > customers, not to use Windows when accessing their bank account.  
> 
> That would seem very strange. That is tantamount to telling people
> not to use a computer to access their bank account.
> 
> Not that Windows isn't hopelessly insecure. But not using Windows is
> not really a feasible answer, instead some technical solution is
> needed.
> 
> John Savard

Well, it's not a problem to boot Linux liveCD/USB and do what is needed.
Besides that I see all Dell and Acer laptops come with Linux
preinstalled in my country. Other manufacturers sell only 600euros >
laptops with Windows preinstalled.
Desktops are sold without OS usually. This is because in my country
Windows preinstalled adds 50-100euros to a price.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#159873

"Quadibloc" wrote:

> On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 3:57:17 PM UTC-7, Melzzzzz wrote:
>
>> Hm, recently Raiffeisen bank in my country sent a warning to customers,
>> not to use Windows when accessing their bank account.
>
> That would seem very strange. That is tantamount to telling people not to 
> use a computer to access their bank account.
>
> Not that Windows isn't hopelessly insecure. But not using Windows is not 
> really a feasible answer, instead some technical solution is needed.

The last few months I was using Internet Explorer,  more and more sites 
refused to communicate with me, mostly (perhaps) all because of security 
concerns.  We seem to now be in a post http: era and in an https: era. There 
is some Arthur C Clarke type security magic going on under the hood.  And I 
do not let people muck around with revision levels on my software.  I 
finally gave up and switched to Firefox.  The many problems I was having 
disappeared and the old sites bloomed again. like a new spring season

It is possible that "no Windows" is a useful, shorthand way of saying: " no 
IE with levels before m.n.p . IOW, it is hard to communicate with people who 
have lives to live, minutiae is a PITA to those people. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#159897

"Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> wrote in message 
news:dipuhuF5qfcU1@mid.individual.net...
> "Quadibloc" wrote:
>
>> On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 3:57:17 PM UTC-7, Melzzzzz wrote:
>>
>>> Hm, recently Raiffeisen bank in my country sent a warning to customers,
>>> not to use Windows when accessing their bank account.
>>
>> That would seem very strange. That is tantamount to telling people not to 
>> use a computer to access their bank account.
>>
>> Not that Windows isn't hopelessly insecure. But not using Windows is not 
>> really a feasible answer, instead some technical solution is needed.
>
> The last few months I was using Internet Explorer,  more and more sites 
> refused to communicate with me,

I still use it as my primary browser and that has never happened to me.

I bet what actually happened is that the one you were using was too old.

> mostly (perhaps) all because of security concerns.

Doesn't explain why none have said that to me
and I normally do my net banking using IE and
I have net banking with a very large number of
banks because I keep using the one that pays
the best interest on my substantial wad of cash.
And keep the accounts active when they no
longer pay the best interest rate because it is
a considerable hassle to open an account with
a bank that you have not previously been a
customer with here.

> We seem to now be in a post http: era and in an https: era. There is some 
> Arthur C Clarke type security magic going on under the hood.  And I do not 
> let people muck around with revision levels on my software.

Then that was the real problem.

> I finally gave up and switched to Firefox.  The many problems I was having 
> disappeared and the old sites bloomed again. like a new spring season

And would have done if you had updated IE too.

> It is possible that "no Windows" is a useful, shorthand way of saying: " 
> no IE with levels before m.n.p . IOW, it is hard to communicate with 
> people who have lives to live, minutiae is a PITA to those people.

But easy to encourage them to use their phones and tablets instead. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#159929

Osmium wrote:
> "Quadibloc" wrote:
>
>> On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 3:57:17 PM UTC-7, Melzzzzz wrote:
>>
>>> Hm, recently Raiffeisen bank in my country sent a warning to customers,
>>> not to use Windows when accessing their bank account.
>>
>> That would seem very strange. That is tantamount to telling people not to
>> use a computer to access their bank account.
>>
>> Not that Windows isn't hopelessly insecure. But not using Windows is not
>> really a feasible answer, instead some technical solution is needed.
>
> The last few months I was using Internet Explorer,  more and more sites
> refused to communicate with me, mostly (perhaps) all because of security
> concerns.  We seem to now be in a post http: era and in an https: era. There
> is some Arthur C Clarke type security magic going on under the hood.  And I
> do not let people muck around with revision levels on my software.  I
> finally gave up and switched to Firefox.  The many problems I was having
> disappeared and the old sites bloomed again. like a new spring season
>
> It is possible that "no Windows" is a useful, shorthand way of saying: " no
> IE with levels before m.n.p . IOW, it is hard to communicate with people who
> have lives to live, minutiae is a PITA to those people.
>
Morten wrote about the world transforming into (I forget the cybercurd)
IPV6 from 4.  Could the rejections be due to using the old addressing?

/BAH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#159948

"jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message 
news:PM00052C34E34B3896@aca405fb.ipt.aol.com...
> Osmium wrote:
>> "Quadibloc" wrote:
>>
>>> On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 3:57:17 PM UTC-7, Melzzzzz wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hm, recently Raiffeisen bank in my country sent a warning to customers,
>>>> not to use Windows when accessing their bank account.
>>>
>>> That would seem very strange. That is tantamount to telling people not 
>>> to
>>> use a computer to access their bank account.
>>>
>>> Not that Windows isn't hopelessly insecure. But not using Windows is not
>>> really a feasible answer, instead some technical solution is needed.
>>
>> The last few months I was using Internet Explorer,  more and more sites
>> refused to communicate with me, mostly (perhaps) all because of security
>> concerns.  We seem to now be in a post http: era and in an https: era. 
>> There
>> is some Arthur C Clarke type security magic going on under the hood.  And 
>> I
>> do not let people muck around with revision levels on my software.  I
>> finally gave up and switched to Firefox.  The many problems I was having
>> disappeared and the old sites bloomed again. like a new spring season
>>
>> It is possible that "no Windows" is a useful, shorthand way of saying: " 
>> no
>> IE with levels before m.n.p . IOW, it is hard to communicate with people 
>> who
>> have lives to live, minutiae is a PITA to those people.
>>
> Morten wrote about the world transforming into (I forget the cybercurd)
> IPV6 from 4.  Could the rejections be due to using the old addressing?

Nope, he was just using an antique version of IE. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#159966

In article <diripdFibnkU1@mid.individual.net>, hgww <hgww@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>"jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message 
>news:PM00052C34E34B3896@aca405fb.ipt.aol.com...
>> Osmium wrote:
>>> "Quadibloc" wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 3:57:17 PM UTC-7, Melzzzzz wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hm, recently Raiffeisen bank in my country sent a warning to customers,
>>>>> not to use Windows when accessing their bank account.
>>>>

>>> It is possible that "no Windows" is a useful, shorthand way of saying: " 
>>> no
>>> IE with levels before m.n.p . IOW, it is hard to communicate with people 
>>> who
>>> have lives to live, minutiae is a PITA to those people.
>>>
>> Morten wrote about the world transforming into (I forget the cybercurd)
>> IPV6 from 4.  Could the rejections be due to using the old addressing?
>
>Nope, he was just using an antique version of IE. 

IE6 and earlier have such an atrocius standards compliance that
you basically need to have a whole separate website just for them.

So a few year ago there was a movement to stamp it out. If someone
tried to use this they were politely informed that this browser is
no longer supported, and a link to the upgrade at microsoft.

It has worked reasonably well. Figures are way down from the ~35%
ie6 before the purge to single-digit figures now.

...

Regarding ipv6; we bought a chromecast device for our tv, to
supplement the old appleTV. It uses ipv6 for almost everything.

Even media; to all of the preinstalled sources. Even NRK.

So now around 93% of all ip traffic in and out of this house
is ipv6. Mostly because all the media sites and all the repos
are ipv6, as well as some really large websites. 

But in terms of sites accessed, we are still at ~15%.

-- mrr

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#159973

"Morten Reistad" <first@last.name.invalid> wrote in message 
news:heompc-2c9.ln1@sambook.reistad.name...
> In article <diripdFibnkU1@mid.individual.net>, hgww <hgww@gmail.com> 
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>"jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message
>>news:PM00052C34E34B3896@aca405fb.ipt.aol.com...
>>> Osmium wrote:
>>>> "Quadibloc" wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 3:57:17 PM UTC-7, Melzzzzz wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hm, recently Raiffeisen bank in my country sent a warning to 
>>>>>> customers,
>>>>>> not to use Windows when accessing their bank account.
>>>>>
>
>>>> It is possible that "no Windows" is a useful, shorthand way of saying: 
>>>> "
>>>> no
>>>> IE with levels before m.n.p . IOW, it is hard to communicate with 
>>>> people
>>>> who
>>>> have lives to live, minutiae is a PITA to those people.
>>>>
>>> Morten wrote about the world transforming into (I forget the cybercurd)
>>> IPV6 from 4.  Could the rejections be due to using the old addressing?
>>
>>Nope, he was just using an antique version of IE.
>
> IE6 and earlier have such an atrocius standards compliance that
> you basically need to have a whole separate website just for them.

> So a few year ago there was a movement to stamp it out. If
> someone tried to use this they were politely informed that this
> browser is no longer supported, and a link to the upgrade at microsoft.

Yeah, that's what I meant. Its not surprising that some
web sites just tell you that they don’t work with IE6.

Fuck all refuse to allow even the latest IE to be used.

> It has worked reasonably well. Figures are way down from
> the ~35% ie6 before the purge to single-digit figures now.
>
> ...
>
> Regarding ipv6; we bought a chromecast device for our tv, to
> supplement the old appleTV. It uses ipv6 for almost everything.
>
> Even media; to all of the preinstalled sources. Even NRK.
>
> So now around 93% of all ip traffic in and out of this house
> is ipv6. Mostly because all the media sites and all the repos
> are ipv6, as well as some really large websites.
>
> But in terms of sites accessed, we are still at ~15%.
 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#159893

"Quadibloc" <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message 
news:2a6d17e9-f34f-43a2-b7ed-2bf0634d5890@googlegroups.com...
> On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 3:57:17 PM UTC-7, Melzzzzz wrote:
>
>> Hm, recently Raiffeisen bank in my country sent a warning to customers,
>> not to use Windows when accessing their bank account.
>
> That would seem very strange.

Completely stupid in fact.

> That is tantamount to telling people not to use a computer to access their 
> bank account.

But to use their phone instead presumably.

Pretty stupid when androids are much less secure than Win.

Tho I spose they could argue that their app for androids
is much more secure than using a browser on Win would be.

> Not that Windows isn't hopelessly insecure.

Its not hopeless at all, just beyond most users.

> But not using Windows is not really a feasible answer,

It is  now when almost everyone would have a phone now.

> instead some technical solution is needed.

They may have decided that they have that, their app for phones.
Tho they should really block the use of browsers completely if they
believe that that is a technical solution. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers

csiph-web