It was a good ride - will miss y'all!
in [Visual Basic]
|
Prev: Localized Date
Next: Check if String has a number
From: Henning on 6 May 2010 19:16 "Mayayana" <mayayana(a)invalid.nospam> skrev i meddelandet news:utYku%23W7KHA.5112(a)TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... > | > | Have you tried Avast? > | > > No. Mostly I was trying products based on this report: > > http://www.matousec.com/projects/proactive-security-challenge/results.php > > Unfortunately, those tests are also testing malware. > Likewise, Online Armor is designed to block malware, > control running programs, etc. I don't want that. I just > want a good firewall. So the reports at matousec have > to be taken with a grain of salt. But their report on > Avast also says it doesn't block all outbound traffic. > > There are so many firewalls, and it's hard to test > them well. A lot of them I've filtered out just because > they're so bloated. I tried Comodo, Outpost and PCTools. > I don't remember now what I found with those, but I seem > to remember them just being overproduced and bloated. > > ZoneAlarm? /Henning
From: Mayayana on 6 May 2010 23:36 | ZoneAlarm? | I used to use ZA on Win98. Later versions have become wildly bloated. Version 2.6 can still be used on XP and that's fairly compact, but ZA is not very good about specifics, and they made some sort of deal with Microsoft to allow MS software through after v. 2.6. They started allowing svchost through by default and it can't be stopped. And ZA doesn't inform which process is going out via svchost. I cleaned up junk services like Windows Time, shut off silly nonsense like "Simple TCP/IP Services", and reset my router to use hardcoded IPs so that I wouldn't need DHCP. Once I went through everything that was trying to go online and cleaned up, it turned out that nothing from Windows *needs* to go online. So I don't want to use programs like ZA that just give an irrevocable pass to any system process. To my mind those programs have sold out their true purpose to make the program easier to use and thereby gain a wider audience. (That's what Symantec did when they bought AtGuard. In addition to adding bloat and doubling the price, they also set hundreds of programs to get through the firewall by default. Since hardly anything is blocked, there's unlikely to be any inconvenience to the customer, so the firewall seems hassle-free.)
From: MM on 7 May 2010 02:36 On Thu, 06 May 2010 13:38:29 -0700, Karl E. Peterson <karl(a)exmvps.org> wrote: >Henning wrote: >> "Karl E. Peterson" <karl(a)exmvps.org> skrev i meddelandet >> news:%23IEFncV7KHA.4208(a)TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... >>> Henning wrote: >>>> "Karl E. Peterson" <karl(a)exmvps.org> skrev i meddelandet >>>> news:%23WbtAvK7KHA.3504(a)TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... >>>>> Henning wrote: >>>>>> "Karl E. Peterson" <karl(a)exmvps.org> skrev ... >>>>>>> David Kaye wrote: >>>>>>>> "Larry Serflaten" <serflaten(a)usinternet.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> We would still need someone to provide 'free' access. I doubt my >>>>>>>>> provider offers NNTP, and from the sound of things, many other >>>>>>>>> major players are letting go also.... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Eternal September provides free access. There are others as well. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I just created an account with them, and all appeared to be going well. >>>>>>> Until I tried logging in. The credentials are being rejected. Do you >>>>>>> know if they're having problems at the moment? >>>>>> >>>>>> Same thing happened to me... I can login to my personal page, but not to >>>>>> the newsserver. :(( >>>>> >>>>> Yeah, I even logged in (on the web) and "changed" my password. No go >>>>> over nntp. >>>> >>>> Mailed their support last night (in europe), and today it's working. Guess >>>> I will get me some payed4 account at giganews, who have very long times >>>> hosting msgs, several years. For text only groups, the cheapest is good >>>> enough 5 GB/mo $4.99. >>> >>> Their servers did finally sync up, and I appear to be in. I think I'll >>> stick with free, for now. >> >> Yepp, but this is what is the bait for me: 2509 Days Text Newsgroup Retention > >On which server? At e-s, I show 6043 posts going back to 11/24/09 in >this group. Don't forget NewsgroupDirect with around 160,000 posts going back to 2005! MM
From: MM on 7 May 2010 02:42 On Thu, 6 May 2010 10:55:55 -0700, "Bob Butler" <noway(a)nospam.ever> wrote: > >"MM" <kylix_is(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message >news:vuu5u5tngd80e2uknfi4nganj4vgr71aul(a)4ax.com... >> On Thu, 6 May 2010 07:36:01 -0700, "Bob Butler" <noway(a)nospam.ever> >> I believe once they have sold it a million times and a million >> potential customers are making their livelihoods from it, they lose >> all rights to it. Or at least they lose the right to screw over those >> million users within just a few years on the pretext of introducing >> something new that turns out to be incompatible. > >I don't believe in punishing somebody for being successful. I don't think >that MS should have any right to pursue somebody who came out with a >source-compatible VB replacement given that they have abandoned it, but the >VB6 compiler is their property and no matter how many people want it it is >still their property. Okay, you would allow a source-compatible VB replacement, so I'd go with that if that was the best offer on the table. MM
From: MM on 7 May 2010 02:45
On Thu, 06 May 2010 14:33:56 -0400, GS <GS(a)discussions.microsoft.com> wrote: >Bob Butler pretended : >> "MM" <kylix_is(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message >> news:vuu5u5tngd80e2uknfi4nganj4vgr71aul(a)4ax.com... >>> On Thu, 6 May 2010 07:36:01 -0700, "Bob Butler" <noway(a)nospam.ever> >>> I believe once they have sold it a million times and a million >>> potential customers are making their livelihoods from it, they lose >>> all rights to it. Or at least they lose the right to screw over those >>> million users within just a few years on the pretext of introducing >>> something new that turns out to be incompatible. >> >> I don't believe in punishing somebody for being successful. I don't think >> that MS should have any right to pursue somebody who came out with a >> source-compatible VB replacement given that they have abandoned it, but the >> VB6 compiler is their property and no matter how many people want it it is >> still their property. > >I agree that the VB compiler is their 'property'. But that doesn't mean >they have to squander it if not using it; -they could sell it or even >donate it for the betterment of all. Hey.., maybe that qualifies it as >good criteria for a tax write off for the Gates Foundatation!<g> Yep, the only things stopping Microsoft from selling the VB source code is their extremely large head and their fit of pique. They would lose NOthing from making the source code available and would probably gain an enormous amount of good faith, something that has been sorely lacking down One Microsoft Way for a decade. Mind you, they would also be tacitly admitting defeat with VB.Net, and that would stick in their craw forever. MM |