Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 29th May 2006 22:14 UTC
Internet Explorer Microsoft has said that the version of IE7 for Vista will differ slightly from the one for XP and down. "I want to announce that we will be naming the version of IE7 in Windows Vista 'Internet Explorer 7+'. While all versions of IE7 are built from the same code base, there are some important differences in IE7+, most significantly the addition of Windows Vista-only features like Protected Mode, Parental Controls, and improved Network Diagnostics. These features take advantage of big changes in Windows Vista and weren't practical to bring downlevel."
Order by: Score:
Bad naming scheme ...
by WorknMan on Mon 29th May 2006 22:35 UTC
WorknMan
Member since:
2005-11-13

They should call it IE 6.5 (or similar) in XP and IE7 in Vista.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Bad naming scheme ...
by Kroc on Tue 30th May 2006 16:35 UTC in reply to "Bad naming scheme ..."
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

No, the '+' makes IE7/XP sound inferior and yet one more marketing tool to convince the XP user to upgrade.

IE7/IE7+, Vista Home Basic (ie. this is limited and not very good) / Vista Home Premium (ie. this is the quality choice, you wouldn't want to eat dog food now would you?).

All of MS's decisions of late have been about marketing and setting up the push to make people upgrade when (if) Vista comes out.

You certainly don't hear about "Mac OS X Home Pro edition Premium upgrade v10.5" because it's an OS, not a joke.

Edited 2006-05-30 16:36

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Bad naming scheme ...
by n4cer on Tue 30th May 2006 20:10 UTC in reply to "RE: Bad naming scheme ..."
n4cer Member since:
2005-07-06

You certainly don't hear about "Mac OS X Home Pro edition Premium upgrade v10.5" because it's an OS, not a joke.

No, it's because Apple makes money off of the system the OS is running on as well and they charge a premium for both. It's also because Apple doesn't have that big of a market to be able to cater to different types of users. Not everyone needs every feature offered in Windows, and if they can get a version with mainly the set of features they need, they'll pick the SKU that fits that need. Over the last 5.5 years, the cost of updates and support for XP works out to be a lot less than the same for MacOS X (especially if you got XP from an OEM like Dell where the cost starts at around $40 - $50).

Reply Score: 1

Hmm.
by Pseudo Cyborg on Mon 29th May 2006 22:42 UTC
Pseudo Cyborg
Member since:
2005-07-09

If these were/are Vista-specific changes, why bother listing them as IE7 features at all? If they're Vista updates then that's fine. If they're IE7 changes, then they appear to be tied to the OS--which I believe was ruled illegal in the US and other countries.

Am I missing something?

Reply Score: 5

RE: Hmm.
by Yamin on Tue 30th May 2006 06:08 UTC in reply to "Hmm."
Yamin Member since:
2006-01-10

Pseudo Cyborg,

They're simply saying one version of IE is taking advantage of things available in Vista that are not available in Windows XP.

Different OS = different capabilities an application can exploit.

This is no different that if one OS supported transparency and the other didn't. An application takes advantage of transparency in one version and not in the other.

Now, I am assuming these capabilities are public capabilities/APIs, not solely for IE7+.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Hmm.
by n4cer on Tue 30th May 2006 08:12 UTC in reply to "RE: Hmm."
n4cer Member since:
2005-07-06

Now, I am assuming these capabilities are public capabilities/APIs, not solely for IE7+.

Your assumption would be correct.
http://windowssdk.msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/libra...

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Hmm.
by Pseudo Cyborg on Tue 30th May 2006 17:11 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Hmm."
Pseudo Cyborg Member since:
2005-07-09

Good to know. That was my only concern, really. Thanks for the clarification! ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Hmm.
by sappyvcv on Tue 30th May 2006 12:48 UTC in reply to "Hmm."
sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

No, it was not ruled illegal.

Reply Score: 1

Wow
by GStepper on Mon 29th May 2006 22:47 UTC
GStepper
Member since:
2006-03-08

It's incredible how Microsoft delivers.

5 years after IE 6, I'm so impressed let's resume the marvelous features:

- protected mode : Well it's clearly not a feature, it's just an attempt to correct design mistake in all their recent version of windows (low level integration of some IE part).

- Parental control: Just a tip kids, download Firefox or any other non-microsoft free browser and the parental control will fly away (I wish I'm 10 years old again ...)

- Network diagnostic: Wow really cool feature that is likely to be useless for about any average user.

All of these is to be added with the innovative features like RSS, tab browsing and all the rest that can be found in concurent browser for years.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Wow
by Noremacam on Mon 29th May 2006 22:58 UTC in reply to "Wow"
Noremacam Member since:
2006-03-08

Well, the parental control could be effective if it's controlled above the application layer. Granted if the kid is talented enough, they could find a proxy method.

Also, they could create an account for the kids that wouldn't allow them to install a new browser(although I know a way or two around that as well).

Edited 2006-05-29 23:00

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Wow
by mnemonics on Mon 29th May 2006 23:04 UTC in reply to "RE: Wow"
mnemonics Member since:
2006-04-21

"Also, they could create an account for the kids that wouldn't allow them to install a new browser"

I'm sure there will be windows vista based live CDsavailable soon after it's realesed with the usual "reset administrator password" feature and the kid install/do what he/she wants.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Wow
by sbenitezb on Mon 29th May 2006 23:11 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Wow"
sbenitezb Member since:
2005-07-22

Heck, today kids can hack into windows servers!! Do you think their parents will lock them out of their PCs? ;)

Seriously, a good internet filter is the way to go. So it doesn't matter which browser you use, you just can't get to the content if the filter drops it.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Wow
by n4cer on Tue 30th May 2006 03:41 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Wow"
n4cer Member since:
2005-07-06

Seriously, a good internet filter is the way to go. So it doesn't matter which browser you use, you just can't get to the content if the filter drops it.

It doesn't matter what browser or other internet application you use on Vista as the content/network access filtering is implemented at the network layer, not in the browser.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Wow
by kaiwai on Tue 30th May 2006 08:34 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Wow"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Oh pulease; this is pathetic; what about the responsibility of the parents monitoring the activities themselves? be in the same room - popping in and asking how things are, looking through the history, and if things have been deleted, grounding the kid from the computer because of being dishonest.

On, and as for the 16 year old kid looking up some porn - good lord, are we really going to get *that* puritannical? geeze, no wonder there are so many adults out there who can't say 'penis' without laughing histerically like a school girl.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Wow
by DeadFishMan on Tue 30th May 2006 12:51 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Wow"
DeadFishMan Member since:
2006-01-09

Oh pulease; this is pathetic; what about the responsibility of the parents monitoring the activities themselves? be in the same room - popping in and asking how things are, looking through the history, and if things have been deleted, grounding the kid from the computer because of being dishonest.

On, and as for the 16 year old kid looking up some porn - good lord, are we really going to get *that* puritannical? geeze, no wonder there are so many adults out there who can't say 'penis' without laughing histerically like a school girl.


Ditto. I wish I could give you more mod points...

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Wow
by macisaac on Tue 30th May 2006 15:29 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Wow"
macisaac Member since:
2005-08-28

and what exactly is wrong with giving parents tools they can use to better do their job?

and as to your porn comment, do you think it's a good thing if my 7 year old types in a search for some inaucuous term, but ends up in some hard core sex site instead?

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Wow
by rockwell on Tue 30th May 2006 16:33 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Wow"
rockwell Member since:
2005-09-13

//and as to your porn comment, do you think it's a good thing if my 7 year old types in a search for some inaucuous term, but ends up in some hard core sex site instead?//

Ignore the liberal egghead idiot, whose parents likely supported the spiraling decay of morality in the late 60's, that created the present morass of decrepitude.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Wow
by kaiwai on Wed 31st May 2006 01:08 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Wow"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Ignore the liberal egghead idiot, whose parents likely supported the spiraling decay of morality in the late 60's, that created the present morass of decrepitude.

Interesting, and those who proclaim themselves as cornerstones of 'conservativatism' and 'morality' tend to know nothing about what their kids *really* get up to.

Luckily I had 'liberal parents', because unlike my 'conservative' counterparts, whilst they were off inpregnating females and drinking until they were unconscience, I was at home studying, working and keeping out of trouble.

Where are my conteporaries now? thats right, they were stuck with a kid at 19, their life down the toilet, all because of the so-called 'wholesome conservative upbringing' which you promote.

Geeze rockwell, are you part of the 'condoms promote sex' group - well, here is a nother thing, laughing, eating oreo's, heck, even talking could all lead to sex! shock horror! perish the thought or personal choice and individual responsibility! the very things that *use to* be the corner stone of the Republican party, before it was highjacked by the religious nuts.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Wow
by Noremacam on Mon 29th May 2006 23:12 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Wow"
Noremacam Member since:
2006-03-08

Or just bypass windows entirely and use a linux live cd...

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Wow
by RenatoRam on Tue 30th May 2006 07:41 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Wow"
RenatoRam Member since:
2005-11-14

If you have such a tech savvy child then the only way to make some filtering/protection is probably using a router/firewall/proxy/filter to access the internet.

That is, if the kid does not have a laptop or other connected device, and will not access unprotected wifi APs from the neighborhood :-)

...or, you know, you could actually try to talk to your son/daughter and let him/her make responsible choices :-)

Reply Score: 3

RE: Wow
by Aaron1 on Tue 30th May 2006 00:00 UTC in reply to "Wow"
Aaron1 Member since:
2006-01-19

- Parental control: Just a tip kids, download Firefox or any other non-microsoft free browser and the parental control will fly away (I wish I'm 10 years old again ...)

Parental control means daddy Gates will not let you install another browswer.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Wow
by sappyvcv on Tue 30th May 2006 12:51 UTC in reply to "Wow"
sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

Actually, protected mode is a good thing.

No browser is secure. It's a good move to try to protect the user at a lower level by limited the things the browser can do in the first place. So even if there is a security hole with a buffer overflow, it will be protected.

Tell me, how is that a bad thing? All browsers should do it.

- Parental control: Just a tip kids, download Firefox or any other non-microsoft free browser and the parental control will fly away (I wish I'm 10 years old again ...)

Um.. I don't think you have any idea what parental controls are.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Wow
by GStepper on Tue 30th May 2006 13:13 UTC in reply to "RE: Wow"
GStepper Member since:
2006-03-08

"Actually, protected mode is a good thing."

I agree, but it's NOT A FEATURE !!! They try to correct a major design flaw so it's much more a patch than a feature...

"No browser is secure"

And sun will rise tomorrow... that is called evidence...

"It's a good move to try to protect the user at a lower level by limited the things the browser can do in the first place. So even if there is a security hole with a buffer overflow, it will be protected."

You mean just like firefox on my linux box... I agree but again on the Microsfot side with their 2000 patent/year this is purely unacceptable that they prefered their users had many security problems just because Microsoft wanted to tie IE and Windows in order to be the only one on the web market. It's surely a good move/innovation/whatever for Microsoft but it's just evidence for anybody else...

"Um.. I don't think you have any idea what parental controls are."

Um... Give me a physical access to your Vista/IE7+ parental controlled box for half an hour and then we'll discuss about your so-called (power of marketing) parental control crap.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Wow
by sappyvcv on Tue 30th May 2006 13:46 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Wow"
sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

I agree, but it's NOT A FEATURE !!! They try to correct a major design flaw so it's much more a patch than a feature...

Actually, it is a feature. I don't know what random definition you're going by. It's not a patch either, or fixing a design flaw. It's taking steps to eliminate potential oversights in software -- which ALL software has -- at a lower level.

And sun will rise tomorrow... that is called evidence...

Huh?

You mean just like firefox on my linux box... I agree but again on the Microsfot side with their 2000 patent/year this is purely unacceptable that they prefered their users had many security problems just because Microsoft wanted to tie IE and Windows in order to be the only one on the web market. It's surely a good move/innovation/whatever for Microsoft but it's just evidence for anybody else...

Will linux protect your home directories files from getting deleted by a shell script executed through exploiting a buffer overflow? No, it will not. I don't even understand what you're trying to say here.

Um... Give me a physical access to your Vista/IE7+ parental controlled box for half an hour and then we'll discuss about your so-called (power of marketing) parental control crap.

Well no shit, if you have physical access to do what you want, you can get past anything. You're missing the point.

It's one extra step of protection for parents. For younger kids, it will be very useful.

For older kids, probably not so much. At that point, they can do things like set a BIOS password and physically lock the box. If the lock is broken, they can find out. But the parental controls are still a complement to those things. They are still useful.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Wow
by hal2k1 on Tue 30th May 2006 14:09 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Wow"
hal2k1 Member since:
2005-11-11

//Will linux protect your home directories files from getting deleted by a shell script executed through exploiting a buffer overflow? No, it will not. I don't even understand what you're trying to say here. //

Actually, it more than likely will.

A buffer overflow on Linux is rare, exploits that utilise such are rarer still, buffer overflows that behave in the exact same predictable way on all Linux boxes (thereby making such an exploit viable) are even rarer again. Most buffer overflow bugs are fixed pronto and are easily removed (patched) at no cost via packages managers. We are talking like "does not exist" here, in all practicality.

Certainly it most definately does not exist in "kit form" for script kiddies to roll their own nasty from. Virtually all nasties are Windows nasties.

The chance of that which you describe above actually happening to someone running a user-friendly desktop Linux variant (such as PCLinuxOS or Xandros) at home is next-to-zero. Odds of it happening are like 1:googleplex.

Edited 2006-05-30 14:14

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Wow
by sappyvcv on Tue 30th May 2006 14:24 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Wow"
sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

You missed the point.

It will not.

What you are talking about is that it's rare (not the point) and that it will get fixed ASAP (again, not the point).

It's not likely to happen right now, but it's still possible and THAT, my friend, is what matters. You should still protect against possibilities.

Security through obscurity is not security.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Wow
by hal2k1 on Tue 30th May 2006 14:36 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Wow"
hal2k1 Member since:
2005-11-11

Your claim: "and that it will get fixed ASAP (again, not the point)"

contradicts with

"You should still protect against possibilities."

Fixing it ASAP IS protecting against possibilities.

//Better to do it now than later when it happens, right?//

Agreed. Buffer overflows are usually accompanied by the particular application crashing. Crashes should always be addressed pronto, and they are. Your point?

Edited 2006-05-30 14:41

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Wow
by sappyvcv on Tue 30th May 2006 15:55 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Wow"
sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

No, it doesn't contradict. Fixing it ASAP is only one method of protecting. I should have been a little more clear. Steps should be taken to make it not even POSSIBLE. It's another method of protecting, and that's not a bad thing. It closes the gap even more, and that's the goal. Why are you arguing about that?

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Wow
by hal2k1 on Tue 30th May 2006 14:58 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Wow"
hal2k1 Member since:
2005-11-11

//Security through obscurity is not security.//

Agreed.

So tell me, will Vista still be backwards-compatible with the win32 API? (The API from circa 1995, when MS put out a single-user OS that had no internet connectivity.)

Will Vista still happily execute a file that it has no idea about who owns it or what permissions it is suppsoed to have, simply run it because it happens to have an extension of ".exe"? Will Windows Vista continue to allow applications to be installed just by running an unidentified .exe file? (after all this is required to maintain backwards compatibility with win32 API). Will Windows Vista still allow running a file that has a .exe filename and which is stored on a FAT partition? (FAT partitions means that Vista has no idea where the file came from, what local permissions it has or who owns it).

Which is it? Will Windows Vista customers be screwed because of lack of backwards compatibility - so that they can't install applications any more from a setup.exe on a CD that they legitimately own? Or will Windows Vista still allow backwards compatibility, and completely abandon any hope of being secure thereby?

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Wow
by sappyvcv on Tue 30th May 2006 15:59 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Wow"
sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

Are you really that uninformed about Vista?

Vista will keep a lot of backwards compatibility. It will also run executables if you request. However, once an application tries to do something potentially harmful, the user is notified.

If you really need permissions, you can use them too. Restrict what a user can and can not run.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Wow
by GStepper on Tue 30th May 2006 14:25 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Wow"
GStepper Member since:
2006-03-08

"Huh?"
The original context was :

No browser is secure. (your insightful words)
And sun will rise tomorrow... that is called evidence... (and my corresponding answer)

"Will linux protect your home directories files from getting deleted by a shell script executed through exploiting a buffer overflow? No, it will not"

Let's consider facts, will you ? How many Firefox/Linux users have had their home directories deleted or the underlying system hurted ? Please tell us. Now how many Windows/IE users have had not only their documents corrupted but also their OS unusable ? Again please tell us.

"I don't even understand what you're trying to say here. "

I admit my English is not that good and I apologise for that but perhaps you'd prefer to go on in russian or spanish or french ? I'd feel much more comfortable.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Wow
by sappyvcv on Tue 30th May 2006 14:27 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Wow"
sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

As I just said, just because it is not currently likely, does not mean it is not possible and should not be protected against. Better to do it now than later when it happens, right?

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Wow
by hal2k1 on Tue 30th May 2006 14:34 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Wow"
hal2k1 Member since:
2005-11-11

//As I just said, just because it is not currently likely, does not mean it is not possible and should not be protected against. Better to do it now than later when it happens, right?//

Not only is it not currently likely, but it is extremely unlikely, and it has been extremely unlikely for a long time, and continues to be extremely unlikely for the forseeable future. I have never heard of such a thing ever happening to anyone using Linux.

It is unlikely squared compared to how likely such a thing is to happen to a user running Windows.

Linux likelihood: 1:googleplex.
Windows likelihood: 50:50.

Edited 2006-05-30 14:44

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Wow
by BluenoseJake on Tue 30th May 2006 14:53 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Wow"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

Extremely unlikely? I doubt that, every complex piece of software has vulnerablities in it, including linux, and the linux kernel is getting more complicated all the time, they were even considering the next minor version to be a bug fix version to clean things up. Your numbers are bullshit, and your reasoning is flawed. As Linux and MacOS X become more popular, they will become bigger targets, and someone, somewhere will find the hidden vulnerablities, and exploit them, because as they become more popular, they get installed on computers owned by people who have no knowledge of Linux, and how to maintain it, which leads to less secure systems

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Wow
by sappyvcv on Tue 30th May 2006 15:54 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Wow"
sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

So your policy is security through obscurity? You have not denied that it is possible. If it is possible, it should be protected against.

Reply Score: 1

f*ck IE
by sbenitezb on Mon 29th May 2006 23:04 UTC
sbenitezb
Member since:
2005-07-22

I hate it, I hate that friends call me to fix their Windows because they still use IE. Even if I installed them Firefox and told them to use it. Then one of them (owns a cybercafe) fires up IE to get a game crack, and you know, all those underground sites are full of virii, trojans, worms and spyware. Just opening the main page of some .ru site was all needed to get IE hijacked. I yelled at him to use the damn Firefox, but still he said most customers know IE, not Firefox.

Will IE7 be better than 6? I hope for all Windows users souls. At least it should be more secure. Tabs, parental controls and stuff like this are just addons. Security is more important and top priority. If they still allow ActiveX and other shit, then it's the same shit but with different scent.

Reply Score: 1

RE: f*ck IE
by TheRealHDC on Tue 30th May 2006 06:04 UTC in reply to "f*ck IE"
TheRealHDC Member since:
2006-01-18

Just opening the main page of some .ru site was all needed to get IE hijacked. I yelled at him to use the damn Firefox, but still he said most customers know IE, not Firefox.

Oh yeah, that .ru zone is a totally evil place, populated by anything but a legit sites, unlike those absolutely safe .com or .net ones! It's all probably a part of some inherently evil humanity-destroying Russian plan!!!!1one

Sorry, maybe I'm overreacting a little bit ;)

Will IE7 be better than 6? I hope for all Windows users souls. At least it should be more secure. Tabs, parental controls and stuff like this are just addons. Security is more important and top priority. If they still allow ActiveX and other shit, then it's the same shit but with different scent.

Yes, they're stil allowing ActiveX to run, but you'll need to jump over many hoops to install even those you want. Actually it looks like it's more hoops to jump than in case of installing some random downloaded app ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: f*ck IE
by StephenBeDoper on Tue 30th May 2006 10:05 UTC in reply to "RE: f*ck IE"
StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

Oh yeah, that .ru zone is a totally evil place, populated by anything but a legit sites, unlike those absolutely safe .com or .net ones! It's all probably a part of some inherently evil humanity-destroying Russian plan!!!!1one

To be fair, it's not really news that many ISPs in Russia (and, sadly, in many of the less potically-stable/economically-prosperous parts of the world) are pretty lax when it comes to dealing with net abuse carried out by their users. Which is a shame of course, due to the negative impact it has on people in those countries using the internet for benign purposes; I know of many mailserver admins who just blacklist the entire netblocks assigned to China, Hong Kong, Nigeria, Brazil, and Russia.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: f*ck IE
by TheRealHDC on Tue 30th May 2006 12:08 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: f*ck IE"
TheRealHDC Member since:
2006-01-18

To be fair, it's not really news that many ISPs in Russia (and, sadly, in many of the less potically-stable/economically-prosperous parts of the world) are pretty lax when it comes to dealing with net abuse carried out by their users.

Amazingly, most of those so-called "software security sites" with a .ru domain are in fact hosted in the Netherlands ;) Exactly the same with a porn sites. Also, I've never came across an ISP TOS which didn't strictly disallowed service usage for distribution of porn and "software security" stuff. So the only thing some Russian ISPs are tolerant to is copyright violation, but this situation is also improving quickly. Anyway, I personally can't see a direct link betwen a .ru domain and malware be any stronger than between a .com and the same malware ;) Dodgy sites are all over the place domain-wise ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE: f*ck IE
by StephenBeDoper on Tue 30th May 2006 09:37 UTC in reply to "f*ck IE"
StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

I hate it, I hate that friends call me to fix their Windows because they still use IE. Even if I installed them Firefox and told them to use it.

The best solution: delete all shortcuts to IE, rename the Firefox shortcut to "Internet Explorer," and put in place of all the IE shortcuts. I did that a few years back when working in an Access Centre/public computer lab thing that was frequented largely by middle schoolers. The machines were largely spyware/adware-free after doing that - and with an IE skin installed in Firefox, I don't think that anyone actually noticed.

And making it even easier to switch, Microsoft has been kind enough to release a version of the Windows Genuine Advantage plugin for Firefox (Windows-only, sadly) - how magnanimous of them ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: f*ck IE
by hal2k1 on Tue 30th May 2006 13:02 UTC in reply to "RE: f*ck IE"
hal2k1 Member since:
2005-11-11

// // I hate it, I hate that friends call me to fix their Windows because they still use IE. Even if I installed them Firefox and told them to use it. //

The best solution: delete all shortcuts to IE, rename the Firefox shortcut to "Internet Explorer," and put in place of all the IE shortcuts. //

Is there also a theme for Firefox that makes it look like IE to an untrained eye?

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: f*ck IE
by Finalzone on Tue 30th May 2006 16:29 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: f*ck IE"
Finalzone Member since:
2005-07-06

Outlook 2003 theme
Luna Blue
Luna
Firefox Vista to mimick IE7 look


Those are themes mimicking IE look. It is quite surprise to find more skins on Firefox.

Edited 2006-05-30 16:32

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: f*ck IE
by Axord on Wed 31st May 2006 13:18 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: f*ck IE"
Axord Member since:
2005-06-30

Is there also a theme for Firefox that makes it look like IE to an untrained eye?

Try the steps on this site:
http://johnhaller.com/jh/mozilla/firefox_internet_explorer/

Shockingly comprehensive.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: f*ck IE
by hal2k1 on Wed 31st May 2006 13:38 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: f*ck IE"
hal2k1 Member since:
2005-11-11

//Is there also a theme for Firefox that makes it look like IE to an untrained eye?

Try the steps on this site:
http://johnhaller.com/jh/mozilla/firefox_internet_explorer/

Shockingly comprehensive.//

Thanks. Thanks a lot. I think I might just do that to my sister-in-law's home computer (after I clean it up from the damage that using IE has done to it) in order to try to protect her from anyone else who tries to "help" by deleting firefox from her machine.

//I ask them if they are still using firefox that I had installed. No, they tell me, because the man from their new ISP put Internet Explorer back (and deleted firefox) when he set up their new internet account.//

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: f*ck IE
by Havin_it on Tue 30th May 2006 13:17 UTC in reply to "RE: f*ck IE"
Havin_it Member since:
2006-03-10

"And making it even easier to switch, Microsoft has been kind enough to release a version of the Windows Genuine Advantage plugin for Firefox (Windows-only, sadly)"

Small point, but what other platform would you like a *WINDOWS* Genuine Advantage plugin for?

I'm not a bit surprised that people didn't notice, though. Whenever I find myself thinking that anti-trust suits are ridiculous, I remind myself of all the people I know for whom the blue 'e' = teh interweb, and trying to tell them it's not that simple generally just upsets them. So, just change the IE icons' target paths to Firefox or Opera - problem solved!*

*I have never done this, though I am often tempted...

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: f*ck IE
by hal2k1 on Tue 30th May 2006 13:58 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: f*ck IE"
hal2k1 Member since:
2005-11-11

//Small point, but what other platform would you like a *WINDOWS* Genuine Advantage plugin for? //

What if I wanted to apply a security update patch for my legitimately-purchased copy of Office which I have installed on my Linux box (with firefox as the browser)? I run this copy of MS Office under Wine.

I have a valid license to run it, I therefore paid for such updates, it wouldn't cost Micrsoft anything extra to just let me update as any other user does, so why couldn't I sue Microsoft for not supplying such updates for my copy of Office due to their WGA checks?

Edited 2006-05-30 14:01

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: f*ck IE
by Havin_it on Tue 30th May 2006 19:06 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: f*ck IE"
Havin_it Member since:
2006-03-10

Come along now... you're talking about a Win32 API compatibility layer, not an OS. Microsoft don't support any of their software under Wine. What bewilders me is why you'd think they should: they make Office for Windows, and (at the moment) you can't even install any version of Office on Wine without first installing IE and/or other Windows components, which you cannot legally do unless you own a copy of Windows. So it's a bit hard to play the injured party when you own everything you need to use the software. So they won't help you use it on an unsupported 'platform'? FFS, want a Farley's Rusk with that?

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: f*ck IE
by hal2k1 on Wed 31st May 2006 02:50 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: f*ck IE"
hal2k1 Member since:
2005-11-11

//Microsoft don't support any of their software under Wine. What bewilders me is why you'd think they should: they make Office for Windows//

I am not asking Microsoft to "support" Office under Wine. All that I would ask is that Microsoft make Office updates available to all people who can show that they have bought a legitimate copy of Office - as is Microsoft's legal responsibility to do.

These people have paid for their copy of Microsoft Office. If they want to run it under (say) Crossover Office, that is their choice, and their making that choice does not absolve Microsoft of the obligation to provide updates that those people have paid for and have a legitimate right to.

What you are saying is akin to a position "Ford don't support their vehicles running with Shell gasoline. You must use Texaco."

There are 100% perfectly legitimate reasons for buying Office (and Windows too, if required) but then running Office under Linux and Crossover Office. 10 million (or whatever the number is) Windows viruses, malware, keyloggers, exploits, spyware, adware, DRM and other nasties is just one reason that springs to mind.

The point is, whatever my reasons, how I run Office is my choice not Microsoft's to make. My making a sane choice and not running Windows is no concern of Microsoft's, and most especially my choice does NOT absolve Microsoft of the responsibility to fix defects in my legitimate copy of their product.

Edited 2006-05-31 03:02

Reply Score: 1

RE: f*ck IE
by tspears on Tue 30th May 2006 14:12 UTC in reply to "f*ck IE"
tspears Member since:
2006-05-22

the plural of virus is Viruses... NOT VIRII

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: f*ck IE
by Kroc on Tue 30th May 2006 16:50 UTC in reply to "RE: f*ck IE"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

Internet Lexicon allows for it. Did you know that when the pilgrims travelled to America, the language adapted under a new environment? Even the slang term 'Okay' is now considered part of normal lexicon (even the most used word worldwide), but started in 1839.

The Internet is just as much a different environment as those that instigated language changes in earlier eras. Personally I find the terms 'Virii' and 'Boxen' to be correct, formal Internet Lexicon and always use them accordingly.

You shouldn't shout at someone (boldcaps) because they choose to utilize widely used and accepted slang. Since this is your website, why not just word-filter it if it annoys you so, but don't make an ass out of yourself for such a petty thing; this is the Internet afterall.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: f*ck IE
by tspears on Tue 30th May 2006 18:49 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: f*ck IE"
tspears Member since:
2006-05-22

I think there is a fine line between the lexiconical and/or the colloquialistic and just sounding like a moron.

This is just my opinion, however, and I'm not trying to start an argument.

Reply Score: 1

bornagainenguin
Member since:
2005-08-07

... that make IE7 what it is, how can anyone claim IE7 and IE7+ are the same thing and not simply a reshacked executible of IE6.xx?

If I (and other users) simply wanted an IE with nicer widgets I'm sure we all know how to hack those in via reshacker or other 'prettification' applications by the likes of Stardock...this is little more than a joke IMHO and an attempt to force an upgrade for security reasons.

When is it Dapper Drake gets released again? ;)

--bornagainpenguin (not about to bother with the IE crap)

Reply Score: 2

abraxas Member since:
2005-07-07

... that make IE7 what it is, how can anyone claim IE7 and IE7+ are the same thing and not simply a reshacked executible of IE6.xx?

If I (and other users) simply wanted an IE with nicer widgets I'm sure we all know how to hack those in via reshacker or other 'prettification' applications by the likes of Stardock...this is little more than a joke IMHO and an attempt to force an upgrade for security reasons.


IE7 is more than just a repackaged IE6. The rendering engine is a major upgrade. It will be much more compatible with W3C standards than IE6 is currently. This is very good news for web developers.

Reply Score: 1

sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

Here is an honest question:

Do you truly believe what you just said?

Reply Score: 1

RE: Bad naming scheme ...
by ma_d on Tue 30th May 2006 00:04 UTC
ma_d
Member since:
2005-06-29

That makes no sense. It's 7 because it's a major architectural change... You'd call it 6.5 if it had the featureset of 7 with the codebase of 6 (modified of course).

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Wow
by ma_d on Tue 30th May 2006 00:07 UTC
ma_d
Member since:
2005-06-29

Yea, a packaged version of firefox that can run out of your home directory would follow suit within days...
The only way to stop it would be to whitelist processes with full paths.

Anyway, I thought IE6 had parental controls.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Wow
by WorknMan on Tue 30th May 2006 02:03 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Wow"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

Yea, a packaged version of firefox that can run out of your home directory would follow suit within days...
The only way to stop it would be to whitelist processes with full path


Isn't that what Portable Firefox is for ?

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Wow
by RenatoRam on Tue 30th May 2006 08:17 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Wow"
RenatoRam Member since:
2005-11-14

Exactly.

And if windows does not have a noexec setting for partitions/folders/whatever (and it does not have it, afaik), you are pretty much screwed :-)

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Wow
by n4cer on Tue 30th May 2006 08:40 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Wow"
n4cer Member since:
2005-07-06

And if windows does not have a noexec setting for partitions/folders/whatever (and it does not have it, afaik), you are pretty much screwed :-)

All NT versions of Windows allow you to set permissions on files/folders/partitions/drives/etc., including denying execute permissions.

As mentioned earlier, installing (assuming it didn't need admin rights to "install") another browser wouldn't bypass the filtering. The parent could also choose to block unapproved applications from running under the child's account.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Wow
by mnemonics on Tue 30th May 2006 09:08 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Wow"
mnemonics Member since:
2006-04-21

"All NT versions of Windows allow you to set permissions on files/folders/partitions/drives/etc., including denying execute permissions.

As mentioned earlier, installing (assuming it didn't need admin rights to "install") another browser wouldn't bypass the filtering. The parent could also choose to block unapproved applications from running under the child's account."


It's so so easy...

Step 1) Go to ANY live CD (linux, BSD or windows based) webpage and download the image file.

Step 2)Burn your image file onto a CD that you can label for instance "homework archives"...

Step 3) Boot onto the previously burnt CD and enjoy the full power of your hardware.
Note: some CDs will allow you to reset administrator password (I'd prefer that solution)so you won't need to boot onto the CDs that often...

Assuming there is a router/firewall/filter device which does the filtering and that you have no password to access it, there are optional steps:

1) After resetting the admin password, install a keylogger ( any trial version is OK) that will listen for your parents accounts.

2)Slightly disconnect the phone cable of your filtering device so that the internet is lost because the person that configured the filtering device is likely to connect to it to check parameters and/or other stuff.

3)Gather the keylogger log (filtering device password) , bring back the internet (properly plug the phone cable)and do what you want !

When you got physical access to the hardware then security vanishes...

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: Wow
by StephenBeDoper on Tue 30th May 2006 10:27 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Wow"
StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

It's so so easy...

Step 1) Go to ANY live CD (linux, BSD or windows based) webpage and download the image file.

Step 2)Burn your image file onto a CD that you can label for instance "homework archives"...


That becomes much more difficult if your access to the computer is limited in any significant way - say, by only having a regular user account rather than being an admin. If I recall correctly, Windows built-in burning wizard can't burn ISO images properly (if it will even work for non-admins). So then you need something like Nero, which you would need admin access to install.

Step 3) Boot onto the previously burnt CD and enjoy the full power of your hardware.
Note: some CDs will allow you to reset administrator password (I'd prefer that solution)so you won't need to boot onto the CDs that often...


If the owner of the admin account accessed it with any regularity, I think they would notice pretty quickly that their password had been changed.

Reply Score: 1

RE[8]: Wow
by mnemonics on Tue 30th May 2006 11:58 UTC in reply to "RE[7]: Wow"
mnemonics Member since:
2006-04-21

"That becomes much more difficult if your access to the computer is limited in any significant way - say, by only having a regular user account rather than being an admin. If I recall correctly, Windows built-in burning wizard can't burn ISO images properly (if it will even work for non-admins). So then you need something like Nero, which you would need admin access to install. "

Did you understand that steps 1 & 2 had to be done on the "protected" machine ? These steps can be done from any machine that have internet connection & burner. Or you pay 5 /$ to buy a linux magazine that provide a brand new live CD...

"If the owner of the admin account accessed it with any regularity, I think they would notice pretty quickly that their password had been changed."

They notice whatever they want if you're not seen on the moment you're resetting the password then you're innocent.

Edited 2006-05-30 11:59

Reply Score: 2

RE[9]: Wow
by essdeekay on Tue 30th May 2006 13:14 UTC in reply to "RE[8]: Wow"
essdeekay Member since:
2006-01-31

"They notice whatever they want if you're not seen on the moment you're resetting the password then you're innocent."

Homes aren't a court of law you know. If it's a single child family and the kid looks and sounds guilty when queried about what happened to the password on the admin account then most knowledgable parents would probably think the kid was guilty.

It's easy enough to set BIOS passwords and then restrict booting off CD in the BIOS, thereby limiting the use of Live CDs.

Reply Score: 1

RE[8]: Wow
by hal2k1 on Tue 30th May 2006 12:48 UTC in reply to "RE[7]: Wow"
hal2k1 Member since:
2005-11-11

//That becomes much more difficult if your access to the computer is limited in any significant way - say, by only having a regular user account rather than being an admin. If I recall correctly, Windows built-in burning wizard can't burn ISO images properly (if it will even work for non-admins). So then you need something like Nero, which you would need admin access to install. //

Just buy a copy of a Linux live CD. Cost perhaps $5 - mostly to cover the media and postage costs. If you ask nicely in the right places (such as a local LUG meeting), someone may even give you one. The Live CD would have a complete OS, all applications and a browser. These days you can save personal settings and any download files on a USB stick. Such a thing can make it possible to browse to your hearts content without leaving any trace at all on the Windows machine of your on-line activities.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Wow
by sappyvcv on Tue 30th May 2006 13:00 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Wow"
sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

Set a BIOS password and get a case that can be locked with a key if it's that much of a concern.

Reply Score: 1

RE[8]: Wow
by hal2k1 on Tue 30th May 2006 13:06 UTC in reply to "RE[7]: Wow"
hal2k1 Member since:
2005-11-11

//Set a BIOS password//

How many parents are going to know what a BIOS actually IS? Let alone know that they have to do BOTH (1) set the BIOS password AND (2) disable booting from any device other than the Hard Disk.

Edited 2006-05-30 13:08

Reply Score: 1

RE[9]: Wow
by sappyvcv on Tue 30th May 2006 13:47 UTC in reply to "RE[8]: Wow"
sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

You are right. However, that is the parents problem (or the computer vendor), and not Microsofts.

Reply Score: 1

RE[9]: Wow
by Mellin on Tue 30th May 2006 15:47 UTC in reply to "RE[7]: Wow"
Mellin Member since:
2005-07-06

i can open that case without keys becorse that lock is so easy to pick and reset the bios can be done in a few seconds

Reply Score: 1

RE[10]: Wow
by AmigaRobbo on Tue 30th May 2006 22:43 UTC in reply to "RE[9]: Wow"
AmigaRobbo Member since:
2005-11-15

I know this is rather off subject, but it may be "easy" to reset the bios so you can boot from CD so you can bypass the porn filters, the problem is not doing it, but being able to hide the fact that the Bios settings have changed. And maybe it just becomes easier not to look at the porno?

But as you say Parental responsibity, talking things through as a family, yada-yada...

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Wow
by hal2k1 on Tue 30th May 2006 12:53 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Wow"
hal2k1 Member since:
2005-11-11

//As mentioned earlier, installing (assuming it didn't need admin rights to "install") another browser wouldn't bypass the filtering. The parent could also choose to block unapproved applications from running under the child's account.//

Hack the login details for the ISP (not required if you have a home LAN with router), and invest in a Linux live CD ($5 perhaps) and a USB memory stick (parents may even buy this for you if you say it is for school).

Doesn't matter then one teeny tiny bit what the parents choose to do in Windows.

Edited 2006-05-30 12:56

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Wow
by StephenBeDoper on Tue 30th May 2006 10:18 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Wow"
StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

Yea, a packaged version of firefox that can run out of your home directory would follow suit within days...

Wouldn't the firewall prevent them from browsing with it though? Under XP at least, I'm pretty sure only Admins can add exceptions/unblock applications. I think it's reasonable to assume that if a parent is making use of Parental Control features, then they're also not going to be giving their kid admin access.

Reply Score: 1

Denied New Web Browser With New OS
by cyclops on Tue 30th May 2006 00:55 UTC
cyclops
Member since:
2006-03-12

Microsoft have been planning to release a new browser with its new shiny OS little did they realise that it would take so long, or even that it would have a competitor.

Its just done the next best thing, ship a crippleware *good enough* browser for last years OS.

Am I the only one that is insulted.

Reply Score: 1

Cutting edge
by atsureki on Tue 30th May 2006 03:04 UTC
atsureki
Member since:
2006-03-12

Protected Mode, eh? I've been looking for an operating system for my 286.

Reply Score: 2

As if.
by jamesrdorn on Tue 30th May 2006 03:50 UTC
jamesrdorn
Member since:
2005-07-27

As if Windows Vista Ultimate Edition was bad enough naming for as OS, they come out with <insert product><insert version>+ super edition.

Reply Score: 1

Nothing new
by tertiary_adjunct on Tue 30th May 2006 03:52 UTC
tertiary_adjunct
Member since:
2006-01-15

Took a look at it. Seems like it has nothing but features that I've enjoyed elsewhere for sometime. Also, why does IE need to have parental controls within the browser? My Mac can set that on a user account basis, not to mention what my router can do.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Nothing new
by n4cer on Tue 30th May 2006 03:57 UTC in reply to "Nothing new"
n4cer Member since:
2005-07-06

Also, why does IE need to have parental controls within the browser?

They aren't in the browser. It's an OS feature.
See http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2006/03/01/541669.aspx

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Nothing new
by tertiary_adjunct on Tue 30th May 2006 05:33 UTC in reply to "RE: Nothing new"
tertiary_adjunct Member since:
2006-01-15

"They aren't in the browser. It's an OS feature."

Perhaps for Vista. But previous releases have made it part of the browser. Perhaps I phrased things wrong. I guess I am just wondering what took so long to make it part of Windows itself.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Nothing new
by sappyvcv on Tue 30th May 2006 12:56 UTC in reply to "Nothing new"
sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

If firefox had features you could have enjoyed already in other browsers, does that make it any less attractive?

If it does, I feel sorry for you.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Wow
by Soulbender on Tue 30th May 2006 05:20 UTC
Soulbender
Member since:
2005-08-18

"- Network diagnostic: Wow really cool feature that is likely to be useless for about any average user."

That's the feature I'll aprreciate the most. Anyone whos ever had to troubleshoot a problem with the "help" of IE's totally worthless error messages will surely look forward to working with errors messages that are actually remotely usefull.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Wow
by Soulbender on Tue 30th May 2006 05:23 UTC
Soulbender
Member since:
2005-08-18

"as the content/network access filtering is implemented at the network layer, not in the browser."

So we can look forward to seriously hampered and erratic network performance then since "network layer" content filtering is insanely complex, speed reducing and prone to errors.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Wow
by n4cer on Tue 30th May 2006 08:02 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Wow"
n4cer Member since:
2005-07-06

So we can look forward to seriously hampered and erratic network performance then since "network layer" content filtering is insanely complex, speed reducing and prone to errors.

It won't be 100% accurate on things like image filtering of course. I haven't experienced any speed or network performance issues.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Wow
by BluenoseJake on Tue 30th May 2006 12:10 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Wow"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

I'm glad you were able to find something to complain about, might have ruined your whole day

Reply Score: 0

Weird
by HiThere on Tue 30th May 2006 07:18 UTC
HiThere
Member since:
2006-05-13

Why is this mentioned so late?
One would expect that designs where made a long time ago.

Reply Score: 2

RE: f*ck IE
by emokid156 on Tue 30th May 2006 08:22 UTC
emokid156
Member since:
2006-04-19

I hate it, I hate that friends call me to fix their Windows because they still use IE. Even if I installed them Firefox and told them to use it. Then one of them (owns a cybercafe) fires up IE to get a game crack, and you know, all those underground sites are full of virii, trojans, worms and spyware.

Do what I did to family/friends. Tell them straight up that IE is dangerous and you won't support them if anything goes wrong with it - they're on their own. If this worries them, set up a fake proxy that doesn't exist in IE, disable the 'Lan Settings' tab in the registry so they can't remove it, then hide IE using the Default Programs & Settings tool (which is useless anyway).

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: f*ck IE
by dannysfather on Tue 30th May 2006 08:38 UTC in reply to "RE: f*ck IE"
dannysfather Member since:
2006-05-07

"I hate it, I hate that friends call me to fix their Windows because they still use IE."

When I flatly told my parents I wouldn't help them if they were still using IE or Outlook and complained of viruses . . . Upon the next visit, I found them using Mozilla 1.7.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: f*ck IE
by BluenoseJake on Tue 30th May 2006 12:14 UTC in reply to "RE: f*ck IE"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

"then hide IE using the Default Programs & Settings tool (which is useless anyway)."

If it's so useless, how is it that it is useful here?

Reply Score: 1

A lame attempt to get people buy Vista.
by axilmar on Tue 30th May 2006 10:41 UTC
axilmar
Member since:
2006-03-20

Microsoft is at it again: it bundles special features in its apps that are exclusive to its new and shiny OS. There is no technical reason why the "special" could not be part of IE...but Microsoft wants to sell as many Vistas as possible.

In the same context, Halo 2 will only be for Vista.

Reply Score: 2

sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

Actually there are reasons. The first 2, I can promise you, are at an OS level and available to all apps. IE is just the first one to use them.

Would you really trust IE to protect itself? I wouldn't. I'd rather it be done at a lower level, even if I won't use IE.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Wow
by Soulbender on Tue 30th May 2006 13:07 UTC
Soulbender
Member since:
2005-08-18

Me complaining or not does not the change the fact that it's very hard, nigh impossible, to get usefull network layer content filtering at reasonable speeds.
Of course, any content filtering is useless against encrypted connections.

Reply Score: 1

RE[8]: Wow
by n4cer on Tue 30th May 2006 19:27 UTC in reply to "RE[7]: Wow"
n4cer Member since:
2005-07-06

Me complaining or not does not the change the fact that it's very hard, nigh impossible, to get usefull network layer content filtering at reasonable speeds.
Of course, any content filtering is useless against encrypted connections.


Check "Layered Service Provider" for more details. MS uses this same API for its firewall, QoS, ISA Server clients, etc. Third parties use it similarly with no apparent hit in network performance. Do "netsh winsock show catalog" on an XP (possibly 2k) system and you'll see installed LSPs. AIUI, the LSP works right after the content is decrypted so it can still filter an encrypted connection.

Reply Score: 1

Uhm...
by Marco Ravich on Tue 30th May 2006 14:56 UTC
Marco Ravich
Member since:
2006-01-01

...and who cares ?

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: f*ck IE
by sbenitezb on Tue 30th May 2006 16:01 UTC
sbenitezb
Member since:
2005-07-22

You are right, I always thought it was a latin plural word.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Wow
by sbenitezb on Tue 30th May 2006 16:14 UTC
sbenitezb
Member since:
2005-07-22

I don't understand. I can say pennis without laughing. I don't know about you and the kind of people you are. I don't even know why you said it's patetic. Pathetic what? The truth? That kids can subvert parental controls? That parents don't know how to "control" a computer? That I suggested a filter is better (not knowing that Vista, as someone noted, filters at network layer)?

What really amazes me is how much score you get from your stupid comment, without any sense.

I didn't even make any moral assumptions here. I was a kid and I rented XXX movies, I saw XXX magazines and I enjoyed porn like everyone. I'm not catholic, I don't believe in any form of god, nor in religion so I really don't have any commitment with your "puritannical".

***But I do believe a 6 year old shouldn't be watching hard core video because he suddenly clicked a porn link without him knowing about it***
Go chew this!

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Wow
by kaiwai on Wed 31st May 2006 01:15 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Wow"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Excuseme, its your job as a parent to MONITOR what your kids watch on television or surf on the internet. Interesting, you allow your kid to have a TV in his room, and yet, you get all flushed and bothered over the idea of this 'evil' called the internet.

Like I said, if you wanted to monitor your kids activities, you don't need hack prone, ineffective software installed on the machine, what you need is to be an active parent in your childs development, and actually work WITH your kid when he is on the internet.

Oh, and btw, if you had a frank and open discussion with your kid about sex and sexuality, he would feel the need to go off and do a little DIY on the internet - for me at my teenage years? sure, I was in the 'closet' but I can assure, porn gets *very* boring, and given that if I had an issues, I could speak frankly to my parents, rather than surfing the internet, the need to sneak around my parents back wasn't there.

Reply Score: 2

the [i]real[/i] question...
by Kantian on Tue 30th May 2006 17:28 UTC
Kantian
Member since:
2006-04-03

Why are we controlling our kids on the computer? if we have taught them morals and ethics then we shouldn't need any of this, right?

THis, to me, is just another transferrence of responsibility off of the parent's shoulders.

(Just thought I would add this angle to the intense debate)

Reply Score: 1

re: Wow
by Shaman on Tue 30th May 2006 17:49 UTC
Shaman
Member since:
2005-11-15

>Ignore the liberal egghead idiot, whose parents
>likely supported the spiraling decay of morality in
>the late 60's, that created the present morass of
>decrepitude.

The general tone and point of this sentence was clear, but the content itself was entirely impenetrable. As a trolling post, this was truly classy.

Reply Score: 4

RE: re: Wow
by Sphinx on Tue 30th May 2006 19:10 UTC in reply to "re: Wow"
Sphinx Member since:
2005-07-09

Class trolling, true enough but an even more impressive would be as if replying to an argument that didn't exist in the first place. A tip of the hat for that one.

Reply Score: 1

Yeah.....
by chlordane on Wed 31st May 2006 02:06 UTC
chlordane
Member since:
2006-05-11

IE is good for one thing, going to www.mozilla.org, and downloading firefox....

Reply Score: 1