Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Some Kudos for Dell

Last response: in Computer Brands
Share
Anonymous
August 10, 2005 8:23:40 AM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Lots of complaints on usenet so I thought I would give a compliment. I
recently purchased a used/refurbed Latitude C610 from Dell Financial
Services. price was very reasonable. It arrived 100% functional with a
unexpected new dell laptop case. Had both CDRW/DVD and Floppy with connector
for floppy from PPort. I went to Dell site, changed ownership registration
to my name and discoved that there was 3 months left to run on a premium
service contract. When contacted support was very helpful. They sent me
copies of the original CD's that came with system along with two dummy
fillers for the PC card slots. I was very happy with the experience and will
recommend DFS as a source of computers to my friends.
Howard

More about : kudos dell

Anonymous
August 10, 2005 8:23:41 AM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

"Howard Nelson" <htnelsonvip@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:gjfKe.2487$Z87.1839@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> Lots of complaints on usenet so I thought I would give a compliment. I
> recently purchased a used/refurbed Latitude C610 from Dell Financial
> Services. price was very reasonable. It arrived 100% functional with a
> unexpected new dell laptop case. Had both CDRW/DVD and Floppy with
> connector
> for floppy from PPort. I went to Dell site, changed ownership registration
> to my name and discoved that there was 3 months left to run on a premium
> service contract. When contacted support was very helpful. They sent me
> copies of the original CD's that came with system along with two dummy
> fillers for the PC card slots. I was very happy with the experience and
> will
> recommend DFS as a source of computers to my friends.
> Howard
>


You should not have had to contact service within 3 months of the "premium
service contract" ...
Anonymous
August 10, 2005 1:12:59 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

You lousy Dellbot, you. ;->

Glad to finally see a post representing the majority experience with Dell.

--
Ted Zieglar
"You can do it if you try."

"Howard Nelson" <htnelsonvip@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:gjfKe.2487$Z87.1839@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> Lots of complaints on usenet so I thought I would give a compliment. I
> recently purchased a used/refurbed Latitude C610 from Dell Financial
> Services. price was very reasonable. It arrived 100% functional with a
> unexpected new dell laptop case. Had both CDRW/DVD and Floppy with
connector
> for floppy from PPort. I went to Dell site, changed ownership registration
> to my name and discoved that there was 3 months left to run on a premium
> service contract. When contacted support was very helpful. They sent me
> copies of the original CD's that came with system along with two dummy
> fillers for the PC card slots. I was very happy with the experience and
will
> recommend DFS as a source of computers to my friends.
> Howard
>
>
Related resources
August 10, 2005 3:17:12 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

there is not as many complaints as you think, of the thousands computers
that Dell
sells every month there is about 2 percent of complaints.

"Howard Nelson" <htnelsonvip@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:gjfKe.2487$Z87.1839@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> Lots of complaints on usenet so I thought I would give a compliment. I
> recently purchased a used/refurbed Latitude C610 from Dell Financial
> Services. price was very reasonable. It arrived 100% functional with a
> unexpected new dell laptop case. Had both CDRW/DVD and Floppy with
> connector
> for floppy from PPort. I went to Dell site, changed ownership registration
> to my name and discoved that there was 3 months left to run on a premium
> service contract. When contacted support was very helpful. They sent me
> copies of the original CD's that came with system along with two dummy
> fillers for the PC card slots. I was very happy with the experience and
> will
> recommend DFS as a source of computers to my friends.
> Howard
>
>
Anonymous
August 10, 2005 8:18:45 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

While that sounds good and may true, what is the source for the 2%?

--
Jupiter Jones
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar
http://www.dts-l.org


"BigJim" <woody10277@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7uWdnZ2dnZ0TjKebnZ2dneiHZ9-dnZ2dRVn-zp2dnZ0@comcast.com...
> there is not as many complaints as you think, of the thousands computers
> that Dell
> sells every month there is about 2 percent of complaints.
Anonymous
August 10, 2005 11:18:48 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

I'd be shocked if the number was 2%. Realistically that is too high.
Assume the sell a million a month. 2% would be 20,000 complaints. This
newsgroup would be unreadable.

I'd like to know the source too.

Tom
"Jupiter Jones" <jones_jupiter@hotnomail.com> wrote in message
news:FNpKe.215037$on1.190852@clgrps13...
> While that sounds good and may true, what is the source for the 2%?
>
> --
> Jupiter Jones
> http://www3.telus.net/dandemar
> http://www.dts-l.org
>
>
> "BigJim" <woody10277@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:7uWdnZ2dnZ0TjKebnZ2dneiHZ9-dnZ2dRVn-zp2dnZ0@comcast.com...
>> there is not as many complaints as you think, of the thousands computers
>> that Dell
>> sells every month there is about 2 percent of complaints.
>
>
Anonymous
August 10, 2005 11:30:14 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

In article <sqsKe.4832$dJ5.2154@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
tomtoo@softhome.net says...
> I'd be shocked if the number was 2%. Realistically that is too high.
> Assume the sell a million a month. 2% would be 20,000 complaints. This
> newsgroup would be unreadable.

Not it wouldn't as most computer users buying a new computer have no
clue that Usenet exists. Not only that, but if it was really 2%, chances
are that they can't get on the Internet anyway :) 

--

spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me
Anonymous
August 10, 2005 11:30:15 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

I would modify that statement somewhat to say "...most computer users buying
a new computer have no clue" period. The smart ones (the majority)
appreciate that they have a lot to learn, and spend the time to do so. The
not-so-smart ones screw up their systems in no time and then blame the
manufacturer, the software, the support...anyone but themselves.

--
Ted Zieglar
"You can do it if you try."

"Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d641fdfd54dd970989b55@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
> In article <sqsKe.4832$dJ5.2154@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
> tomtoo@softhome.net says...
> > I'd be shocked if the number was 2%. Realistically that is too high.
> > Assume the sell a million a month. 2% would be 20,000 complaints. This
> > newsgroup would be unreadable.
>
> Not it wouldn't as most computer users buying a new computer have no
> clue that Usenet exists. Not only that, but if it was really 2%, chances
> are that they can't get on the Internet anyway :) 
>
> --
>
> spam999free@rrohio.com
> remove 999 in order to email me
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 12:20:56 AM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

"Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d641fdfd54dd970989b55@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
> In article <sqsKe.4832$dJ5.2154@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
> tomtoo@softhome.net says...
>> I'd be shocked if the number was 2%. Realistically that is too high.
>> Assume the sell a million a month. 2% would be 20,000 complaints. This
>> newsgroup would be unreadable.
>
> Not it wouldn't as most computer users buying a new computer have no
> clue that Usenet exists. Not only that, but if it was really 2%, chances
> are that they can't get on the Internet anyway :) 
>
> --
>
Sorry, but the math still doesn't work. 20,000 a month would mean there are
over 1,000,000 from the last four years. Let's say just 5% can get online
and get here, then there would be 50,000 angry people here.
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 12:57:06 AM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

In article <IktKe.4567$Oy2.3543@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
tomtoo@softhome.net says...
>
> "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1d641fdfd54dd970989b55@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
> > In article <sqsKe.4832$dJ5.2154@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
> > tomtoo@softhome.net says...
> >> I'd be shocked if the number was 2%. Realistically that is too high.
> >> Assume the sell a million a month. 2% would be 20,000 complaints. This
> >> newsgroup would be unreadable.
> >
> > Not it wouldn't as most computer users buying a new computer have no
> > clue that Usenet exists. Not only that, but if it was really 2%, chances
> > are that they can't get on the Internet anyway :) 
> >
> > --
> >
> Sorry, but the math still doesn't work. 20,000 a month would mean there are
> over 1,000,000 from the last four years. Let's say just 5% can get online
> and get here, then there would be 50,000 angry people here.

I don't think that 2% of the people that have Usenet access even know
about it - most people only know the Internet as the Web and nothing
else. In the last 20 years I've talked with maybe 10 people that know
about Usenet before I talked to them.

What you have to consider is that less than 10% of the people purchasing
computers for home/small office use have any realization about security
or patches or anything related to the maintenance of their systems. When
you consider the people that only purchase the cheap (sub $1000)
machines, that is probably closer to 1%.

I blame the ISP's and the computer vendors/sellers for not educating the
users, but in this day of order-online without human interaction there
is little chance to educate the buyer.

--

spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 11:23:57 AM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Leythos wrote:

> In article <IktKe.4567$Oy2.3543@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
> tomtoo@softhome.net says...
>
>>"Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
>>news:MPG.1d641fdfd54dd970989b55@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
>>
>>>In article <sqsKe.4832$dJ5.2154@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
>>>tomtoo@softhome.net says...
>>>
>>>>I'd be shocked if the number was 2%. Realistically that is too high.
>>>>Assume the sell a million a month. 2% would be 20,000 complaints. This
>>>>newsgroup would be unreadable.
>>>
>>>Not it wouldn't as most computer users buying a new computer have no
>>>clue that Usenet exists. Not only that, but if it was really 2%, chances
>>>are that they can't get on the Internet anyway :) 
>>>
>>>--
>>>
>>
>>Sorry, but the math still doesn't work. 20,000 a month would mean there are
>>over 1,000,000 from the last four years. Let's say just 5% can get online
>>and get here, then there would be 50,000 angry people here.
>
>
> I don't think that 2% of the people that have Usenet access even know
> about it - most people only know the Internet as the Web and nothing
> else. In the last 20 years I've talked with maybe 10 people that know
> about Usenet before I talked to them.
>
> What you have to consider is that less than 10% of the people purchasing
> computers for home/small office use have any realization about security
> or patches or anything related to the maintenance of their systems. When
> you consider the people that only purchase the cheap (sub $1000)
> machines, that is probably closer to 1%.

Where do you get your numbers from, other than thin air?
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 3:44:27 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Tom Scales wrote:
> >
> Sorry, but the math still doesn't work. 20,000 a month would mean there are
> over 1,000,000 from the last four years. Let's say just 5% can get online
> and get here, then there would be 50,000 angry people here.

nah, they probably got wind of the fact that if you come onto this
newsgroup and air a genuine grievance, you get labelled as a "troll".
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 4:38:28 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

In article <izGKe.26651$sf6.24790@fe08.lga>, Sparky@universalexports.org
says...
> Leythos wrote:
>
> > In article <IktKe.4567$Oy2.3543@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
> > tomtoo@softhome.net says...
> >
> >>"Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
> >>news:MPG.1d641fdfd54dd970989b55@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
> >>
> >>>In article <sqsKe.4832$dJ5.2154@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
> >>>tomtoo@softhome.net says...
> >>>
> >>>>I'd be shocked if the number was 2%. Realistically that is too high.
> >>>>Assume the sell a million a month. 2% would be 20,000 complaints. This
> >>>>newsgroup would be unreadable.
> >>>
> >>>Not it wouldn't as most computer users buying a new computer have no
> >>>clue that Usenet exists. Not only that, but if it was really 2%, chances
> >>>are that they can't get on the Internet anyway :) 
> >>>
> >>>--
> >>>
> >>
> >>Sorry, but the math still doesn't work. 20,000 a month would mean there are
> >>over 1,000,000 from the last four years. Let's say just 5% can get online
> >>and get here, then there would be 50,000 angry people here.
> >
> >
> > I don't think that 2% of the people that have Usenet access even know
> > about it - most people only know the Internet as the Web and nothing
> > else. In the last 20 years I've talked with maybe 10 people that know
> > about Usenet before I talked to them.
> >
> > What you have to consider is that less than 10% of the people purchasing
> > computers for home/small office use have any realization about security
> > or patches or anything related to the maintenance of their systems. When
> > you consider the people that only purchase the cheap (sub $1000)
> > machines, that is probably closer to 1%.
>
> Where do you get your numbers from, other than thin air?

I get them from my experience over the last 2 years with more than 1000
nodes in various areas of the country I live in. I also based the
numbers on reports from others in the security community that have
similar experiences with those ranges/classes of systems/users. On the
Usenet side, I would have to say that less than 2% of the people using
Internet access, that we've talked with, have any idea that Usenet
exists at all.


--

spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 4:38:29 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

>
> I get them from my experience over the last 2 years with more than 1000
> nodes in various areas of the country I live in. I also based the
> numbers on reports from others in the security community that have
> similar experiences with those ranges/classes of systems/users. On the
> Usenet side, I would have to say that less than 2% of the people using
> Internet access, that we've talked with, have any idea that Usenet
> exists at all.
>

ah, the youthful exhuberance of an inexperienced know-it-all.

All the old timers were there once, dont feel bad.
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 7:52:03 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

In article <R4GdnZ2dnZ1T-WTZnZ2dnVzsZt-dnZ2dRVn-zp2dnZ0@speakeasy.net>,
nutcracker@internationalhacker.org says...
>
> >
> > I get them from my experience over the last 2 years with more than 1000
> > nodes in various areas of the country I live in. I also based the
> > numbers on reports from others in the security community that have
> > similar experiences with those ranges/classes of systems/users. On the
> > Usenet side, I would have to say that less than 2% of the people using
> > Internet access, that we've talked with, have any idea that Usenet
> > exists at all.
> >
>
> ah, the youthful exhuberance of an inexperienced know-it-all.

Your assumption is incorrect, I only used the last 2 years data as the
demographics change every couple years. I've been on Usenet since the
early 80's, and designing computer systems since the mid 70's.

> All the old timers were there once, dont feel bad.

I see your lack of experience showing here - you just assumed that my
statement of 2 years of data indicated that I only have two years of
experience - bad assumption. It would not be proper to use more than a
sample of 2 years as the influx of users and their exposure to the net
increases in orders of magnitude about every 2 years (along with the
technology advances).



--

spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 7:52:04 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

::::::: golf clap:::::::::::::


Gentlemen, gentlemen.............please.

"Can't we all just get along?" (at 110mph after you've shot out my tires
and I still refuse to stop because I'm holding.)


Stew
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 8:03:51 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

"Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d653e312a43fb47989b66@news-server.columbus.rr.com...

> I see your lack of experience showing here - you just assumed that my
> statement of 2 years of data indicated that I only have two years of
> experience - bad assumption. It would not be proper to use more than a
> sample of 2 years as the influx of users and their exposure to the net
> increases in orders of magnitude about every 2 years (along with the
> technology advances).
>
>
No offense, but your experience can only be your experience. There is no
way that it is statistically valid nor can it be extrapolated to a general
statement.

Simple statistics.

Tom
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 8:03:52 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Tom Scales wrote:
>
> "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1d653e312a43fb47989b66@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
>
> > I see your lack of experience showing here - you just assumed that my
> > statement of 2 years of data indicated that I only have two years of
> > experience - bad assumption. It would not be proper to use more than a
> > sample of 2 years as the influx of users and their exposure to the net
> > increases in orders of magnitude about every 2 years (along with the
> > technology advances).
> >
> >
> No offense, but your experience can only be your experience. There is no
> way that it is statistically valid nor can it be extrapolated to a general
> statement.
>
> Simple statistics.

Also, remember that 73.4% of statistics are made up.

Notan
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 9:26:08 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

In article <HFKKe.4310$Yx1.3623@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
tomtoo@softhome.net says...
>
> "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1d653e312a43fb47989b66@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
>
> > I see your lack of experience showing here - you just assumed that my
> > statement of 2 years of data indicated that I only have two years of
> > experience - bad assumption. It would not be proper to use more than a
> > sample of 2 years as the influx of users and their exposure to the net
> > increases in orders of magnitude about every 2 years (along with the
> > technology advances).
> >
> >
> No offense, but your experience can only be your experience. There is no
> way that it is statistically valid nor can it be extrapolated to a general
> statement.
>
> Simple statistics.

Stats are what you make of them, nothing more. If you have a small
enough sample you can make them show anything you want. While you can
ignore my experience if you want, having done work all over the U.S.
with many types of clients, I can feel secure in stating that less than
2% of the people that have Internet access even know about Usenet.

You could also say that in your experience you don't have enough
experience to know if I'm right or wrong, you could also say that with a
wide range of experiences to sample from, that I could be right. You
could also state your stats behind why you think by numbers are wrong -
please enlighten us.

--

spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 10:12:38 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

"Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d65543d997d5078989b68@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
>
> Stats are what you make of them, nothing more. If you have a small
> enough sample you can make them show anything you want. While you can
> ignore my experience if you want, having done work all over the U.S.
> with many types of clients, I can feel secure in stating that less than
> 2% of the people that have Internet access even know about Usenet.
>
> You could also say that in your experience you don't have enough
> experience to know if I'm right or wrong, you could also say that with a
> wide range of experiences to sample from, that I could be right. You
> could also state your stats behind why you think by numbers are wrong -
> please enlighten us.
>

Well, in my experience, 50% of the computer users in my household regularly
use newsgroups. I guess if you count the cat, it drops to 40%, but he only
uses the computer when he walks across the keyboard.

Reminds me of The Onion.

Just silly.
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 10:12:39 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Your cat reminds you of The Onion?

[Just trying to finally kill off this thread.]

--
Ted Zieglar
"You can do it if you try."

"Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message
news:qyMKe.6807$dJ5.2029@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1d65543d997d5078989b68@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
> >
> > Stats are what you make of them, nothing more. If you have a small
> > enough sample you can make them show anything you want. While you can
> > ignore my experience if you want, having done work all over the U.S.
> > with many types of clients, I can feel secure in stating that less than
> > 2% of the people that have Internet access even know about Usenet.
> >
> > You could also say that in your experience you don't have enough
> > experience to know if I'm right or wrong, you could also say that with a
> > wide range of experiences to sample from, that I could be right. You
> > could also state your stats behind why you think by numbers are wrong -
> > please enlighten us.
> >
>
> Well, in my experience, 50% of the computer users in my household
regularly
> use newsgroups. I guess if you count the cat, it drops to 40%, but he
only
> uses the computer when he walks across the keyboard.
>
> Reminds me of The Onion.
>
> Just silly.
>
>
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 11:54:54 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

In article <1123788704_8099@spool6-east.superfeed.net>, Dugdug56
@what.com says...
> Just like you speeding down the road, In your world that means that the
> car dealer MUST be responsible for that since they sold you the vehicle,
> and your actions are threatening to others.

There you go again, stop trying to find some analogy, since I had to
have training in order to be permitted to drive, your analogy doesn't
work.

People get internet access all the time without ANY instructions - AOL,
SBC, Road Runner, Earth Link, etc.... I know more than 200 users on
those network and not one of them was told anything about security when
they ordered or had the service installed.


--

spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 11:57:05 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

In article <1123788704_8099@spool6-east.superfeed.net>, Dugdug56
@what.com says...
> Basically it is NOT a in a companies pervue to tell me how I can use the
> product I bought from them, It is MY responsibility to know how to use
> it, when to use it and why. NO ONE ELSES.

Sorry, now you're way off. You didn't buy a product from them. You are
leasing time on THEIR network and you already agreed to ANY rules they
want to make at any time - provided your using one of the big 1000 ISP's
in the US.

This ISP is responsible to its customers to ensure that your actions
don't impact their use of the shared COMPANY network and to the
community that your use doesn't impact the internet community.

--

spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me
Anonymous
August 12, 2005 12:13:28 AM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

In article <42fbab98.19059964@nntp.charter.net>, ben_myers_spam_me_not @
charter.net (Ben Myers) says...
> the gaping security holes in the Windows
> operating system, especially now with Internet Explorer tightly integrated into
> the OS, cry out about the gross negligence of Microsoft in foisting off its
> shabby products onto the public.

Ben, I hate to disagree, but, while Windows does allow users to be
easily compromised, you can also easily configure it as a secure OS and
have it run for years at a time without crashes.

I've been installing Windows based workstations and servers for as long
as they've been available and never had a single installation
compromised while following our methods/rules. Microsoft even provides
white-papers on how to setup and run a secure workstation/network for
free.

--

spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me
Anonymous
August 12, 2005 12:49:04 AM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

You and I can read the white papers, but the regular everyday consumer on the
street often does not have access to them. Today, with the overwhelming push to
consumer-oriented computers and essentially a market saturation of computers in
businesses, probably 90% of the computers sold today are to the consumer. To
make the OS as secure as possible Windows can be, new computers should come out
of the box with everything locked down securely, with simple easy-to-explain
steps for the non-geek to follow to make the tradeoff between more secure and
more open in usage. All this, followed by the installation of some hardware (a
router with NAT) and a plethora of non-Microsoft products to close up the holes.

As long as my SOHO clients use the software and follow the rules I've set up for
them (like not visiting porn, gambling, and free offer web sites), their systems
do not get compromised either.

And, of course, one can never mitigate the security issues caused by
architectural deficiencies in Windows. Sorry, but Microsoft is negligent, plain
and simple. Flame me, if you want... Ben Myers

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 20:13:28 GMT, Leythos <void@nowhere.lan> wrote:

>In article <42fbab98.19059964@nntp.charter.net>, ben_myers_spam_me_not @
>charter.net (Ben Myers) says...
>> the gaping security holes in the Windows
>> operating system, especially now with Internet Explorer tightly integrated into
>> the OS, cry out about the gross negligence of Microsoft in foisting off its
>> shabby products onto the public.
>
>Ben, I hate to disagree, but, while Windows does allow users to be
>easily compromised, you can also easily configure it as a secure OS and
>have it run for years at a time without crashes.
>
>I've been installing Windows based workstations and servers for as long
>as they've been available and never had a single installation
>compromised while following our methods/rules. Microsoft even provides
>white-papers on how to setup and run a secure workstation/network for
>free.
>
>--
>
>spam999free@rrohio.com
>remove 999 in order to email me
Anonymous
August 12, 2005 1:06:12 AM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

In article <42fbb7d7.22195106@nntp.charter.net>, ben_myers_spam_me_not @
charter.net (Ben Myers) says...
> You and I can read the white papers, but the regular everyday consumer on the
> street often does not have access to them. Today, with the overwhelming push to
> consumer-oriented computers and essentially a market saturation of computers in
> businesses, probably 90% of the computers sold today are to the consumer.

I agree with that, as long as we count consumers as people in small
offices and your normal office worker in a business.

> To
> make the OS as secure as possible Windows can be, new computers should come out
> of the box with everything locked down securely, with simple easy-to-explain
> steps for the non-geek to follow to make the tradeoff between more secure and
> more open in usage.

I would love to see an option like Fedora gives when you install - where
you can select something like "Home computer", "Server", "Workstation /
Development system".... That would determine the security settings for
the base system before they get a network connection.

> All this, followed by the installation of some hardware (a
> router with NAT) and a plethora of non-Microsoft products to close up the holes.

I think the NAT router is a must also, and every ISP should provide them
to ANY home user if not just enabling them in the ISP's modem/router by
default. As for the non-MS products, only AV software is really needed,
the addition of a soft-firewall under user control is almost meaningless
in normal user hands.

> As long as my SOHO clients use the software and follow the rules I've set up for
> them (like not visiting porn, gambling, and free offer web sites), their systems
> do not get compromised either.

I agree, but with a proper firewall, not just a NAT solution, you can
actually filter the malicious content out of those types of sites too. I
love being able block it in my home where I have a Watch Guard Firebox
II (yea, old, but it works great) running Web Blocker and multiple HTTP
filters based on authentication or IP in the network (some connections
get no filtering, others get full filtering).

> And, of course, one can never mitigate the security issues caused by
> architectural deficiencies in Windows. Sorry, but Microsoft is negligent, plain
> and simple. Flame me, if you want... Ben Myers

I've no reason to flame you, we agree on it, just in a different light,
sort of. I don't see the security problems as "architectural" problems,
the problem was that MS didn't drop support for prior software when they
came out with XP and that always leaves people with opportunities for
exploiting the ease-of-connection that the OS offers. If XP were to have
dropped ALL support for prior versions of software, required a secure
design of software and abandoned the idea that it would run on older
machines with those older apps, it would have been easier to secure it
like Linux is.


--

spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me
Anonymous
August 12, 2005 4:56:01 AM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Indeed. Most of the computers I service in small offices were bought at
Staples, Office Max, Circuit City, Walmart, or Dell (mostly low end Dimensions).
Not exactly the type of reliable hardware that really oughta be in an office,
except that I think the Dimension 2300-2350-2400 are of respectable quality for
office use despite the slow on-board graphics. But you can't talk your
customers out of an impulsive buy made when they are shopping for toothpaste
(Walmart) or copying paper or a digital camera.

There you go again. Stealing ideas. This time from Fedora and other Linux
distros. How do you think Microsoft got started and has festered, er,
prospered? Microsoft has grown by stealing ideas, by Borg-like assimilation of
other companies, and by putting other companies out of business. Most any
commercial or respectable open source Linux distro is a piece of cake to install
compared to Windows, unless you happen to have some really really new or oddball
hardware for which Linux drivers are not available on the distro CD (just like
Windows).

At least two soft firewalls provide coverage of OUTBOUND traffic without being a
royal pain to the unsophisticated end user. Zone Alarm (Pro) has been around
just about the longest time. And Norton's latest Internet Security has a
comparable firewall. It takes me a few minutes to explain succinctly what a
soft firewall can do to protect against unwanted outbound traffic, while
allowing legit traffic to go through. Microsoft's firewall offering is lame
because it fails to monitor outbound traffic, which should not normally be a
problem in a fairly secure system. But then reality intervenes via IE, OCX,
Visual Basic scripts, JavaScript and other executable code which comes to IE
from the outside world, and BINGO! The system has a worm or trojan that wants
to call home with your bank account number, logins to on-line services, and
secret passwords.

The architectural and design issues with Windows come about because Microsoft is
hell-bent on integrating everything into the operating system. Well,
"everything" might be a slight exaggeration. But browser, media player,
messenger all hook themselves deeply into the OS, rather than running with
fewer-than-OS priveleges. Thus, the integrity of the OS is compromised by the
increased level of integration. It does not have to be that way. Firefox,
GAIM, and several media player-type bits of software do not hook themselves into
the OS. Dave Cutler certainly knew better when he led the DEC VMS development,
and Jim Allchin knew quite a bit when he was at Banyan, but I think they have
both prostituted themselves to the Microsoft marketing propeller heads. And
don't ever get me started on the registry, a Rube Goldberg invention if there
ever was one... Ben Myers

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 21:06:12 GMT, Leythos <void@nowhere.lan> wrote:

>In article <42fbb7d7.22195106@nntp.charter.net>, ben_myers_spam_me_not @
>charter.net (Ben Myers) says...
>> You and I can read the white papers, but the regular everyday consumer on the
>> street often does not have access to them. Today, with the overwhelming push to
>> consumer-oriented computers and essentially a market saturation of computers in
>> businesses, probably 90% of the computers sold today are to the consumer.
>
>I agree with that, as long as we count consumers as people in small
>offices and your normal office worker in a business.
>
>> To
>> make the OS as secure as possible Windows can be, new computers should come out
>> of the box with everything locked down securely, with simple easy-to-explain
>> steps for the non-geek to follow to make the tradeoff between more secure and
>> more open in usage.
>
>I would love to see an option like Fedora gives when you install - where
>you can select something like "Home computer", "Server", "Workstation /
>Development system".... That would determine the security settings for
>the base system before they get a network connection.
>
>> All this, followed by the installation of some hardware (a
>> router with NAT) and a plethora of non-Microsoft products to close up the holes.
>
>I think the NAT router is a must also, and every ISP should provide them
>to ANY home user if not just enabling them in the ISP's modem/router by
>default. As for the non-MS products, only AV software is really needed,
>the addition of a soft-firewall under user control is almost meaningless
>in normal user hands.
>
>> As long as my SOHO clients use the software and follow the rules I've set up for
>> them (like not visiting porn, gambling, and free offer web sites), their systems
>> do not get compromised either.
>
>I agree, but with a proper firewall, not just a NAT solution, you can
>actually filter the malicious content out of those types of sites too. I
>love being able block it in my home where I have a Watch Guard Firebox
>II (yea, old, but it works great) running Web Blocker and multiple HTTP
>filters based on authentication or IP in the network (some connections
>get no filtering, others get full filtering).
>
>> And, of course, one can never mitigate the security issues caused by
>> architectural deficiencies in Windows. Sorry, but Microsoft is negligent, plain
>> and simple. Flame me, if you want... Ben Myers
>
>I've no reason to flame you, we agree on it, just in a different light,
>sort of. I don't see the security problems as "architectural" problems,
>the problem was that MS didn't drop support for prior software when they
>came out with XP and that always leaves people with opportunities for
>exploiting the ease-of-connection that the OS offers. If XP were to have
>dropped ALL support for prior versions of software, required a secure
>design of software and abandoned the idea that it would run on older
>machines with those older apps, it would have been easier to secure it
>like Linux is.
>
>
>--
>
>spam999free@rrohio.com
>remove 999 in order to email me
Anonymous
August 12, 2005 6:21:20 AM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Leythos wrote:

> In article <izGKe.26651$sf6.24790@fe08.lga>, Sparky@universalexports.org
> says...
>
>>Leythos wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article <IktKe.4567$Oy2.3543@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
>>>tomtoo@softhome.net says...
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
>>>>news:MPG.1d641fdfd54dd970989b55@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In article <sqsKe.4832$dJ5.2154@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
>>>>>tomtoo@softhome.net says...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>I'd be shocked if the number was 2%. Realistically that is too high.
>>>>>>Assume the sell a million a month. 2% would be 20,000 complaints. This
>>>>>>newsgroup would be unreadable.
>>>>>
>>>>>Not it wouldn't as most computer users buying a new computer have no
>>>>>clue that Usenet exists. Not only that, but if it was really 2%, chances
>>>>>are that they can't get on the Internet anyway :) 
>>>>>
>>>>>--
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Sorry, but the math still doesn't work. 20,000 a month would mean there are
>>>>over 1,000,000 from the last four years. Let's say just 5% can get online
>>>>and get here, then there would be 50,000 angry people here.
>>>
>>>
>>>I don't think that 2% of the people that have Usenet access even know
>>>about it - most people only know the Internet as the Web and nothing
>>>else. In the last 20 years I've talked with maybe 10 people that know
>>>about Usenet before I talked to them.
>>>
>>>What you have to consider is that less than 10% of the people purchasing
>>>computers for home/small office use have any realization about security
>>>or patches or anything related to the maintenance of their systems. When
>>>you consider the people that only purchase the cheap (sub $1000)
>>>machines, that is probably closer to 1%.
>>
>>Where do you get your numbers from, other than thin air?
>
>
> I get them from my experience over the last 2 years with more than 1000
> nodes in various areas of the country I live in. I also based the
> numbers on reports from others in the security community that have
> similar experiences with those ranges/classes of systems/users. On the
> Usenet side, I would have to say that less than 2% of the people using
> Internet access, that we've talked with, have any idea that Usenet
> exists at all.

So it's purely subjective.
Anonymous
August 12, 2005 6:22:02 AM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

S.Lewis wrote:

> ::::::: golf clap:::::::::::::

"Golf clap"?
Anonymous
August 12, 2005 3:57:21 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

In article <AdXKe.3676$Gx1.2508@fe11.lga>, Sparky@universalexports.org
says...
> > I get them from my experience over the last 2 years with more than 1000
> > nodes in various areas of the country I live in. I also based the
> > numbers on reports from others in the security community that have
> > similar experiences with those ranges/classes of systems/users. On the
> > Usenet side, I would have to say that less than 2% of the people using
> > Internet access, that we've talked with, have any idea that Usenet
> > exists at all.
>
> So it's purely subjective.

If you want it to be subjective in your mind, then yes, it's subjective
to you. Do you have any numbers from your personal experience that
disagree with my statement?

--

spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me
Anonymous
August 12, 2005 4:16:31 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

In article <42fbe862.34623440@nntp.charter.net>, ben_myers_spam_me_not @
charter.net (Ben Myers) says...
> Indeed. Most of the computers I service in small offices were bought at
> Staples, Office Max, Circuit City, Walmart, or Dell (mostly low end Dimensions).
> Not exactly the type of reliable hardware that really oughta be in an office,
> except that I think the Dimension 2300-2350-2400 are of respectable quality for
> office use despite the slow on-board graphics. But you can't talk your
> customers out of an impulsive buy made when they are shopping for toothpaste
> (Walmart) or copying paper or a digital camera.

I feel lucky as most of our customers are corporate or non-residential
users. The only residential types we service are the ones that are
managers of the clients we have, so we have it a little easier most
times.

> There you go again. Stealing ideas. This time from Fedora and other Linux
> distros. How do you think Microsoft got started and has festered, er,
> prospered? Microsoft has grown by stealing ideas, by Borg-like assimilation of
> other companies, and by putting other companies out of business. Most any
> commercial or respectable open source Linux distro is a piece of cake to install
> compared to Windows, unless you happen to have some really really new or oddball
> hardware for which Linux drivers are not available on the distro CD (just like
> Windows).

I don't defend MS's business practices, it's what made them what they
are today, and it should be respected for what it is, even if we don't
agree with it - Bill didn't create MS by being fuu-fuu nice.

While many companies create great products, I would think it makes sense
for MS to purchase ones that fit its business needs - if you can
purchase one that has a great product, without screwing it up (See
Diskeeper), you can add a lot of value to your system.

I've never found Windows to be hard to setup, not since Windows 3.11,
and I've found their servers to be easy to setup and maintain also. I
have 4 Fedora Core 3 workstations running here and I'm still unable to
get them to mount Windows 2003 Shares with full R/W permissions to the
file. I also found, due to my own inexperience, fixing a FC3 system to
be much harder than a Windows XP system. The area were Microsoft wins
hands down is support for devices - I see a never ending list of
complaints from RH/FC users about devices not being supported, but
almost everything you could imagine is fully supported on Windows. I
hope that vendors get the idea and start building more Linux ready
drivers, but, unlike Windows, they have to create installer packages for
the different variants of Linux - what works on FC3 may not work on
Mandrake.

> At least two soft firewalls provide coverage of OUTBOUND traffic without being a
> royal pain to the unsophisticated end user. Zone Alarm (Pro) has been around
> just about the longest time. And Norton's latest Internet Security has a

I've seen many ZA personal installations compromised due to User error.
In fact I've only seen personal firewall applications properly
maintained on Network Administrators laptops and some quality developers
laptops - almost every home user I've seen them on has at least one
opening that should not be there.

> comparable firewall. It takes me a few minutes to explain succinctly what a
> soft firewall can do to protect against unwanted outbound traffic, while
> allowing legit traffic to go through.

I agree, but if we properly setup their machines, and it's easy to do,
they only need the NAT border device and don't need a firewall.

> Microsoft's firewall offering is lame

Agreed - it's a PITA for network administrators.

> because it fails to monitor outbound traffic, which should not normally be a
> problem in a fairly secure system. But then reality intervenes via IE, OCX,
> Visual Basic scripts, JavaScript and other executable code which comes to IE
> from the outside world, and BINGO! The system has a worm or trojan that wants
> to call home with your bank account number, logins to on-line services, and
> secret passwords.

But, if the IE was configured properly, according to MS's own security
methods, none of that would be an issue.

> The architectural and design issues with Windows come about because Microsoft is
> hell-bent on integrating everything into the operating system. Well,
> "everything" might be a slight exaggeration. But browser, media player,
> messenger all hook themselves deeply into the OS, rather than running with
> fewer-than-OS priveleges. Thus, the integrity of the OS is compromised by the
> increased level of integration. It does not have to be that way.

It goes back farther than just tight-integration, it's about the OS
model they picked - they wanted a OS that could be used out of the box
without any need for an Admin. What they didn't do was offer a
install/setup wizard that provided for multiple configurations based on
installed need. MS wanted the OS to be easy to use in all environments -
and they succeeded quite well - the default install (even after SP2) of
XP is very easy to use, easy to work with other hardware, easy to use
with any application, etc... That's is it's single weakness and it's
real problem - providing a simple/easy to use platform that tries to
work with everything (not just MS apps).

> Firefox,
> GAIM, and several media player-type bits of software do not hook themselves into
> the OS.

Yes, but there are problems with FireFox and several other apps created
by Open Source teams - have you tried to install FireFox as a "user"
level account? You can't. You have to be an Administrator to install
FireFox. The other thing about FF (and I use it myself) is that it
doesn't support ActiveX, which is great for most of us, but there are
many intranet sites designed around applications that were replaced by
web-screen applications with ActiveX controls to provide the functions
needed (many companies move their old 'green screen' apps to web based
applications and picked IIS/ActiveX as a means to do it).

> Dave Cutler certainly knew better when he led the DEC VMS development,
> and Jim Allchin knew quite a bit when he was at Banyan, but I think they have
> both prostituted themselves to the Microsoft marketing propeller heads. And
> don't ever get me started on the registry, a Rube Goldberg invention if there
> ever was one... Ben Myers

What would be really great is if MS were to come out with LongHorn and
not provide any backwards support for applications or services - to
make the full OS a truly secure OS and offer the performance and
benefits we expect today on these newer systems. I don't expect to see
them drop legacy application support, but it would sure be nice.

--

spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me
Anonymous
August 12, 2005 5:56:14 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

I beg to differ, a large number of new users are "Boomer" coming late to
the field and most don't know enough to really screw them up. They do
however know have issues with thinks that most experienced users take for
granted and off shore support seems fail completely in dealing with this.

KC


"Ted Zieglar" <teddyz@notmail.com> wrote in message
news:WJsKe.3212$ee.2667632@news.sisna.com...
> I would modify that statement somewhat to say "...most computer users
buying
> a new computer have no clue" period. The smart ones (the majority)
> appreciate that they have a lot to learn, and spend the time to do so. The
> not-so-smart ones screw up their systems in no time and then blame the
> manufacturer, the software, the support...anyone but themselves.
>
> --
> Ted Zieglar
> "You can do it if you try."
>
> "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1d641fdfd54dd970989b55@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
> > In article <sqsKe.4832$dJ5.2154@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
> > tomtoo@softhome.net says...
> > > I'd be shocked if the number was 2%. Realistically that is too high.
> > > Assume the sell a million a month. 2% would be 20,000 complaints.
This
> > > newsgroup would be unreadable.
> >
> > Not it wouldn't as most computer users buying a new computer have no
> > clue that Usenet exists. Not only that, but if it was really 2%, chances
> > are that they can't get on the Internet anyway :) 
> >
> > --
> >
> > spam999free@rrohio.com
> > remove 999 in order to email me
>
Anonymous
August 12, 2005 5:58:17 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Just because you have a car, doesn't mean you know how to get to
everywhere on the planet. Call most major ISPs and ask them about NNTP or
Usenet Newsgroups, the answers won't be what you might expect.

KC


"Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message
news:IktKe.4567$Oy2.3543@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1d641fdfd54dd970989b55@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
> > In article <sqsKe.4832$dJ5.2154@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
> > tomtoo@softhome.net says...
> >> I'd be shocked if the number was 2%. Realistically that is too high.
> >> Assume the sell a million a month. 2% would be 20,000 complaints.
This
> >> newsgroup would be unreadable.
> >
> > Not it wouldn't as most computer users buying a new computer have no
> > clue that Usenet exists. Not only that, but if it was really 2%, chances
> > are that they can't get on the Internet anyway :) 
> >
> > --
> >
> Sorry, but the math still doesn't work. 20,000 a month would mean there
are
> over 1,000,000 from the last four years. Let's say just 5% can get online
> and get here, then there would be 50,000 angry people here.
>
>
Anonymous
August 12, 2005 6:27:38 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

"Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d65779cf90bb2ee989b6e@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
> In article <1123788704_8099@spool6-east.superfeed.net>, Dugdug56
> @what.com says...
> > Basically it is NOT a in a companies pervue to tell me how I can use the
> > product I bought from them, It is MY responsibility to know how to use
> > it, when to use it and why. NO ONE ELSES.
>
> Sorry, now you're way off. You didn't buy a product from them. You are
> leasing time on THEIR network and you already agreed to ANY rules they
> want to make at any time - provided your using one of the big 1000 ISP's
> in the US.

With most ISPs in the USA, you're leasing access and services on their
network with access to the internet.

> This ISP is responsible to its customers to ensure that your actions
> don't impact their use of the shared COMPANY network and to the
> community that your use doesn't impact the internet community.

The ISP is responsible for ensuring the availability of said services.
Most have established procedures to protect the network and it's access.
Beyond that there is a limit to the protection they are willing to offer to
individual end user systems due to cost and liability. I've worked at a
number of ISPs, network services companies and computer shops. In the end
cost and liability trumps all else.

KC
Anonymous
August 12, 2005 7:42:36 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

A communicable disease transmitted among golfers? I dunno. I do not play golf.
Too slow.

I prefer non-stop soccer action. As non-stop as it can get at my age.

.... Ben Myers

On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 02:22:02 -0400, Sparky Spartacus
<Sparky@universalexports.org> wrote:

>S.Lewis wrote:
>
>> ::::::: golf clap:::::::::::::
>
>"Golf clap"?
Anonymous
August 12, 2005 11:38:48 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

All too true. The Usenet feed from Charter.net went flaky for a while this
week. Sometimes I could not access it at all. Sometimes it would refuse to
send to a newsgroup. Sometimes it worked the way one would expect.

I contacted Charter twice. The first time, I was given the phone number of the
company which supplies usenet under contract to Charter, a company called
Highwinds. The second time, I was given the phone number of SuperNews support.
SuperNews will provide you with your own individual Usenet feed at a monthly fee
based on number of megabytes you want to download. So Charter tech support is
simply clueless. After I raved and hollered a 3rd time, Charter apparently put
the screws to Highwinds to fix the usenet feed. The last two days, it seems to
work OK. My fingers are crossed, making it difficult to key in anything.

.... Ben Myers

On , "Kevin Childers" <wildthing123@charter.net> wrote:

>
>NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 12:03:32 MST
>Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 14:02:27 -0500
>Xref: Hurricane-Charley alt.sys.pc-clone.dell:40856
>X-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 12:03:32 MST (be08_lga)
>
> Usenet access is not a computer side issue, it is a service provided by
>the ISP, and not all ISPs offer it. There is also the question of what
>Usenet Newsgroups the ISP chooses to carry, again not all ISPs carry all
>Usenet Newsgroups. Usenet is not a money making service so most just offer
>as little as possible and rarely bother to keep anyone on staff strictly for
>their knowledge and support of it.
>
>KC
>
>
Anonymous
August 12, 2005 11:38:49 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

You must have got a tech that missed the change, Supernews was Charter's
old Usenet services provider.

Lucky you, they got it fixed so quickly. When they first changed, I had
a lot of issues, I could post, but not receive from Usenet via
Charter/Highwinds for a couple of months. every time I talked to Charter,
the techs took me through setting up NNTP all over again and every time the
set-up was slightly different. I think I know more about
NNTP/Usenet/Newsgroups, but I called them, so I tried whatever they said.
It didn't help, but then it didn't hurt either. When they finally gave me
Highwinds number, they offered to sell me a direct Usenet access account
through them. It took a while but finally the problem was resolved. In the
interim I would read Usenet post via a free service, and then post via
Charter. Still lately from late in the evening until some time in the wee
hours of the morning you can get an error message that there are to many
connections from Charter to Highwinds servers. The problem is sporadic and
it may go away in a few minutes or it may persist all night.

Over the past few nights Charter has been experiencing network failures
that have blocked Internet, telephone and television services in my area,
(Harvester, MO, USA). There techs are always on it, but as of last night
haven't totally corrected the problem.

KC

<ben_myers_spam_me_not @ charter.net (Ben Myers)> wrote in message
news:42fcf989.20941407@nntp.charter.net...
> All too true. The Usenet feed from Charter.net went flaky for a while
this
> week. Sometimes I could not access it at all. Sometimes it would refuse
to
> send to a newsgroup. Sometimes it worked the way one would expect.
>
> I contacted Charter twice. The first time, I was given the phone number
of the
> company which supplies usenet under contract to Charter, a company called
> Highwinds. The second time, I was given the phone number of SuperNews
support.
> SuperNews will provide you with your own individual Usenet feed at a
monthly fee
> based on number of megabytes you want to download. So Charter tech
support is
> simply clueless. After I raved and hollered a 3rd time, Charter
apparently put
> the screws to Highwinds to fix the usenet feed. The last two days, it
seems to
> work OK. My fingers are crossed, making it difficult to key in anything.
>
> ... Ben Myers
>
> On , "Kevin Childers" <wildthing123@charter.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 12:03:32 MST
> >Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 14:02:27 -0500
> >Xref: Hurricane-Charley alt.sys.pc-clone.dell:40856
> >X-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 12:03:32 MST (be08_lga)
> >
> > Usenet access is not a computer side issue, it is a service provided
by
> >the ISP, and not all ISPs offer it. There is also the question of what
> >Usenet Newsgroups the ISP chooses to carry, again not all ISPs carry all
> >Usenet Newsgroups. Usenet is not a money making service so most just
offer
> >as little as possible and rarely bother to keep anyone on staff strictly
for
> >their knowledge and support of it.
> >
> >KC
> >
> >
>
Anonymous
August 13, 2005 12:22:13 AM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

"Kevin Childers" <wildthing123@charter.net> wrote in message
news:p r6Le.28528$_41.15748@fe02.lga...
> Most ISPs acknowledge the issue, but many end users either don't
> understand or choose to ignore it. A bellwether on the issue is that the
> big three (MSN, AOL, Earthlink), et al are spending money to offer at no
> additional cost antivirus, antispam, malware, and firewall protection to
> their customers. And you just know they aren't doing this out of the
> goodness of their hearts.
>
> KC
>
>


http://www.networkworld.com/news/2005/072805-bellsouth....


Stew
Anonymous
August 13, 2005 12:42:22 AM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

In article <Pr6Le.28528$_41.15748@fe02.lga>, wildthing123@charter.net
says...
> Most ISPs acknowledge the issue, but many end users either don't
> understand or choose to ignore it. A bellwether on the issue is that the
> big three (MSN, AOL, Earthlink), et al are spending money to offer at no
> additional cost antivirus, antispam, malware, and firewall protection to
> their customers. And you just know they aren't doing this out of the
> goodness of their hearts.

They are doing it for one reason - Compromised machines are a serious
drain on bandwidth for any ISP. If they can find a cheap way to limit
compromised machines they in effect gain capacity for more users.

--

spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me
Anonymous
August 13, 2005 12:48:22 AM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

In article <ML6Le.43708$vb3.42305@fe07.lga>, wildthing123@charter.net
says...
> The ISP is responsible for ensuring the availability of said services.
> Most have established procedures to protect the network and it's access.
> Beyond that there is a limit to the protection they are willing to offer to
> individual end user systems due to cost and liability. I've worked at a
> number of ISPs, network services companies and computer shops. In the end
> cost and liability trumps all else.

Enabling NAT on the DSL/Cable modems that support it doesn't COST
anything in actually increases the capacity of the network by decreasing
the number of newly compromised machines. It's hard to get that idea
into the head of the managers and CFO's - if you provide NAT and free
virus software for clients, that your network becomes cleaner and less
used due to viruses not spamming outbound around the net from your
network.


--

spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me
Anonymous
August 13, 2005 12:49:46 AM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

"Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d66d5255124a18f989b93@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
> In article <ML6Le.43708$vb3.42305@fe07.lga>, wildthing123@charter.net
> says...
> > The ISP is responsible for ensuring the availability of said
services.
> > Most have established procedures to protect the network and it's access.
> > Beyond that there is a limit to the protection they are willing to offer
to
> > individual end user systems due to cost and liability. I've worked at
a
> > number of ISPs, network services companies and computer shops. In the
end
> > cost and liability trumps all else.
>
> Enabling NAT on the DSL/Cable modems that support it doesn't COST
> anything in actually increases the capacity of the network by decreasing
> the number of newly compromised machines. It's hard to get that idea
> into the head of the managers and CFO's - if you provide NAT and free
> virus software for clients, that your network becomes cleaner and less
> used due to viruses not spamming outbound around the net from your
> network.
>
But as of last count that still leaves a large majority of internet
users on dial-up unprotected. Not all service providers have the capacity
or the desire to provide free home networking services to residential
customers. These come at a cost that most providers would rather avoid.
Additionally there comes the question of liability. Surprisingly this what
keeps many smaller service providers out of the antivirus/antispam venue.
Ideally each end user machine should have it's own anti-virus protection as
well as the network servers and the network it's self. In the USA the legal
climate is such that were said services provided by the ISP and they were to
fail in some way the potential for a law suit is quite high. We made a tidy
profit helping to keep them clean. Add to this the total disregard of any
possible virus/malware threat by many P2P users, it just becomes over
whelming.

Not to mention that there are a number of commercial apps, and not all
are in true legacy status, that do not work and play well with antivirus
programs. I know of several companies we supported that required their
agents/representatives to use said apps.

The filtering of Email becomes another nightmare due to the sheer volume
of spam on top of viruses that an ISP must shift through. Then there is the
risk of a false positive that delays or dumps some vital business
correspondence. The only way we were able to implement anti-spam and
antivirus on our Email servers was to first get a blanket best efforts, etc.
waiver from the end users or the domain owner and then add a small charge to
cover the additional resources required.

So when you add the human, technical, and financial barriers most ISPs
simply can't afford it. As a minimum we and most other ISPs I know of
did/do provide a rather extensive section on the company web site warning
about the potential threats that exist on the web as well as best practice
to protect networks and end users. The monthly hit count on those pages
though was never very high.

KC
Anonymous
August 13, 2005 12:52:18 AM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

"S.Lewis" <stew1960@mail.com> wrote in message
news:KVbLe.11609$rp.7729@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
>
> "Kevin Childers" <wildthing123@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:p r6Le.28528$_41.15748@fe02.lga...
> > Most ISPs acknowledge the issue, but many end users either don't
> > understand or choose to ignore it. A bellwether on the issue is that
the
> > big three (MSN, AOL, Earthlink), et al are spending money to offer at no
> > additional cost antivirus, antispam, malware, and firewall protection to
> > their customers. And you just know they aren't doing this out of the
> > goodness of their hearts.
> >
> > KC
> >
>
>
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2005/072805-bellsouth....
>
Unfortunately, just as with all security measures they only work when
properly implemented and as long as the creators can keep pace with the ever
increasing threats on the internet.

KC
Anonymous
August 13, 2005 6:26:00 AM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

The first two times when I spoke with the Charter tech, I pinged
nntp.charter.net , and ended up with both the numeric IP address and a
Highwinds-something-or-other address. In the face of that evidence, the
dunderhead Charter tech still wanted me to call SuperNews! Doh!

As you said, ISPs don't know usenet very well... Ben Myers

On , "Kevin Childers" <wildthing123@charter.net> wrote:

>
>NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 13:07:26 MST
>Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 15:06:20 -0500
>Xref: Hurricane-Charley alt.sys.pc-clone.dell:40868
>X-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 13:07:26 MST (be09_lga)
>
> You must have got a tech that missed the change, Supernews was Charter's
>old Usenet services provider.
>
> Lucky you, they got it fixed so quickly. When they first changed, I had
>a lot of issues, I could post, but not receive from Usenet via
>Charter/Highwinds for a couple of months. every time I talked to Charter,
>the techs took me through setting up NNTP all over again and every time the
>set-up was slightly different. I think I know more about
>NNTP/Usenet/Newsgroups, but I called them, so I tried whatever they said.
>It didn't help, but then it didn't hurt either. When they finally gave me
>Highwinds number, they offered to sell me a direct Usenet access account
>through them. It took a while but finally the problem was resolved. In the
>interim I would read Usenet post via a free service, and then post via
>Charter. Still lately from late in the evening until some time in the wee
>hours of the morning you can get an error message that there are to many
>connections from Charter to Highwinds servers. The problem is sporadic and
>it may go away in a few minutes or it may persist all night.
>
> Over the past few nights Charter has been experiencing network failures
>that have blocked Internet, telephone and television services in my area,
>(Harvester, MO, USA). There techs are always on it, but as of last night
>haven't totally corrected the problem.
>
>KC
>
><ben_myers_spam_me_not @ charter.net (Ben Myers)> wrote in message
>news:42fcf989.20941407@nntp.charter.net...
>> All too true. The Usenet feed from Charter.net went flaky for a while
>this
>> week. Sometimes I could not access it at all. Sometimes it would refuse
>to
>> send to a newsgroup. Sometimes it worked the way one would expect.
>>
>> I contacted Charter twice. The first time, I was given the phone number
>of the
>> company which supplies usenet under contract to Charter, a company called
>> Highwinds. The second time, I was given the phone number of SuperNews
>support.
>> SuperNews will provide you with your own individual Usenet feed at a
>monthly fee
>> based on number of megabytes you want to download. So Charter tech
>support is
>> simply clueless. After I raved and hollered a 3rd time, Charter
>apparently put
>> the screws to Highwinds to fix the usenet feed. The last two days, it
>seems to
>> work OK. My fingers are crossed, making it difficult to key in anything.
>>
>> ... Ben Myers
>>
>> On , "Kevin Childers" <wildthing123@charter.net> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 12:03:32 MST
>> >Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 14:02:27 -0500
>> >Xref: Hurricane-Charley alt.sys.pc-clone.dell:40856
>> >X-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 12:03:32 MST (be08_lga)
>> >
>> > Usenet access is not a computer side issue, it is a service provided
>by
>> >the ISP, and not all ISPs offer it. There is also the question of what
>> >Usenet Newsgroups the ISP chooses to carry, again not all ISPs carry all
>> >Usenet Newsgroups. Usenet is not a money making service so most just
>offer
>> >as little as possible and rarely bother to keep anyone on staff strictly
>for
>> >their knowledge and support of it.
>> >
>> >KC
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 4:58:14 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Kevin Childers wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> You've never really worked at an ISP have you?

Kevin, PLEASE! Especially if your just going to post a one-liner,
please learn to snip all the mixed posts before you. Thanks!

Notan
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 5:59:36 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

"Notan" <notan@ddress.com> wrote in message
news:43062BC6.96571354@ddress.com...
> Kevin Childers wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > You've never really worked at an ISP have you?
>
> Kevin, PLEASE! Especially if your just going to post a one-liner,
> please learn to snip all the mixed posts before you. Thanks!
>
> Notan

Sorry about that chief, I missed it by |---| that much...

KC
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 6:16:26 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Kevin Childers wrote:
>
> "Notan" <notan@ddress.com> wrote in message
> news:43062BC6.96571354@ddress.com...
> > Kevin Childers wrote:
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > You've never really worked at an ISP have you?
> >
> > Kevin, PLEASE! Especially if your just going to post a one-liner,
> > please learn to snip all the mixed posts before you. Thanks!
> >
> > Notan
>
> Sorry about that chief, I missed it by |---| that much...

Actally, |----| that much, but who's counting! <g>

Thanks!

Notan
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 6:27:18 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Notan wrote:
>
> Kevin Childers wrote:
> >
> > "Notan" <notan@ddress.com> wrote in message
> > news:43062BC6.96571354@ddress.com...
> > > Kevin Childers wrote:
> > > >
> > > > <snip>
> > > >
> > > > You've never really worked at an ISP have you?
> > >
> > > Kevin, PLEASE! Especially if your just going to post a one-liner,
> > > please learn to snip all the mixed posts before you. Thanks!
> > >
> > > Notan
> >
> > Sorry about that chief, I missed it by |---| that much...
>
> Actally, |----| that much, but who's counting! <g>

And, "Actally" was supposed to be "Actually."

Jeez, between the two of us! <g>

Notan
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 11:05:36 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

That's why top posting is better!

"Notan" <notan@ddress.com> wrote in message
news:43062BC6.96571354@ddress.com...
> Kevin Childers wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> You've never really worked at an ISP have you?
>
> Kevin, PLEASE! Especially if your just going to post a one-liner,
> please learn to snip all the mixed posts before you. Thanks!
>
> Notan
Anonymous
August 20, 2005 2:50:14 AM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

In article <ySpNe.2297$ih4.2148@fe02.lga>, wildthing123@charter.net
says...
[snipped a bunch of lines]
>
> You've never really worked at an ISP have you?

Apparently more than you - as I know to snip lines and don't make a one
line reply without snipping.

I've done work for providers and have two friends that own small (under
10,000 subscribers) ISP groups - why?

--

spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me
Anonymous
August 20, 2005 2:51:45 AM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

In article <44qNe.3432$Z%6.1708@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com>,
nospam@hotmail.com says...
> That's why top posting is better!

LOL, spoken like a true non-conformist.

Since we snipped what you replied to, that means people reading a reply
to you won't know what you were saying - that's why snipping and bottom
posting are best/correct.

--

spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me
!