Re: Windows 98 box is 'owned'; Re:

[GuidoZ <uberguidoz () gmail com>]

=D I think I already posted my replies, so I'll save doing it a 2nd
time. lol Thanks for bringing it here too.

Followup on your WSH idea: They are looking into it. Actually, me
bringing up my dislike as ActiveX being the only thing holding back
from going IE-Free was just enough to have them look at it again. They
are looking into using java instead of ActiveX. (!!!! yay !!!!)

Now all I'm doing is waiting to see what they come up with. The WSH
isn't completely dead, although they admitted that it would most
likely be written for IE too. The java applet they create instead
would be cross platform AND cross browser. Thanks for the push to get
on them again!! I think it might work this time.

--
Peace. ~G


On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 14:10:59 -0400, Glenn Sieb <ges () wingfoot org> wrote:
> (More followup from offlist discussion with Guido :) --Best, G.)
>
> GuidoZ said the following on 10/5/2004 12:33 AM:
>
> > I agree Glen. but only to a point. Many offer features of a hardware
> > firewall, such as SPI. However, in my book, it's not a true hardware
> > firewall unless it offers a multitude of common features generally
> > associated with true hardware firewalls. (SPI, Content filtering, VPN
> > support, and PKI to name a few.)
> Hi Guido,
>
> I don't expect home users to have to invest a few hundred dollars (in
> some cases, per year) to be able to use their cablemodem/DSL
> connections... However, whenever I help friends set up their home
> networks, I do suggest (nowadays) the Netgear WGR614, which gives SPI,
> allows IPSEC outbound for connection to their work VPNs, and lets them
> use their laptops via wireless (with a key, etc., of course). It's all
> based on need--home users don't need content filtering, VPN support
> (except for being able to get to their work connections) or PKI in
> general. Power users like those of us who are sysadmins, sure... but Ma
> and Pa Kettle? Nah. Frankly, there is such a thing as "too much"
> complexity for end users--in my experience, if they can't plug it in and
> use it (or have me over for dinner and make sure it's all plugged in and
> useable), they aren't going to use it. It'll end up gathering dust next
> to their trash can. I also generally advise they get a copy of ZoneAlarm
> or BlackIce to complement the hardware, and to make sure they have an
> anti-virus program on their machines. I also try and preach the wonders
> of Firefox/Mozilla and Thunderbird--unfortunately, most people fear lots
> of change--and they're comfortable with Outcrack (as I call it) and
> Internet Exploder. Why? "They just work" is usually the answer they give
> me. I can configure Firefox to look scarily like IE and Thunderbird to
> have 90% of the functionality of Outcrack (generally features in that
> 10% are stuff they never would use anyway), and yet they'll still go
> back to IE & OE. It's the old "lead a horse to water, but can't make
> them drink" bit :-/
>
> > While it's quite true that some Netgear/LinkSys,D-link routers may
> > offer firewall features (I'm not aware of any one that offers more
> > then SPI), they are too often confused with real hardware firewalls.
> > (Google: SonicWall and AlphaShield for a start) I wanted to make sure
> > others didn't improperly assume, like so many have, that NAT
> > constitutes a firewall.
> Yes I've run PIXs and Nokia firewalls in the past. However, I see them
> (and their peers) as "enterprise-grade" and *way* overkill for Ma and Pa
> Kettle.
>
> > Thanks for you comments.
> Thanks for the reply :)
>
> Best,
> Glenn
>
>
>
> --
> "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
> safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
>           ~Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759