🚀 go-pugleaf

Mark Anderson <mea@nospambradnylion.com> wrote:
> Since no one posts here I thought I'd try and add something interesting.  
> I put my PC on a quiet subnet to check on something and noticed google 
> updates was phoning home every single minute using http with a rather 
> lengthy session.  This chatter was filling up my logs so I investigated 
> and found an installation of google chrome had 3 processes running.  
> After uninstalling google chrome all went away and my laptop is as quiet 
> as a church mouse on the network.  Since I use firefox exclusively I 
> completely forgot I installed Chrome a bunch of months ago  to try it 
> out.  I didn't know that having it installed meant that they could set 
> up shop on my PC!  And this much activity is rather obnoxious IMHO.



Obnoxious maybe, evil, probably not.

From what I understand (which is little), Chrome is unique because it's a
sandboxed browser. Other words, you shouldn't be able to hit a malicious
website which can grab your contacts/address book, plant viruses and so
forth.

It's completely self-contained meaning it doesn't communicate or need calls
from the operating system and stays where it belongs.

To get that to work, it needs to launch a bunch of background processes,
everything from the extentions you have loaded to the printer and updater.
These have to be in the sandbox with the application since they can't be
called if not there.

I guess the main question is if they should continue to run after the main
application quits. I dunno. I've seen a lot people notice the
googleupdater.exe still running but seems to be related to it being able to
download any updates in the background so they are there next time you
launch, rather than waiting around when launched to download.

Same with the printer executable, if you hit print accidently and offline,
guess it keeps running thinking it has a job to do, sometimes for weeks.

So it's more the nature of the beast than anything else.

-bruce
bje@ripco.com

Bruce Esquibel <bje@ripco.com> wrote:

>I guess the main question is if they should continue to run after the main
>application quits. I dunno.

I've noticed plenty of times that plugin-container doesn't quit when I'm
no longer running the plugin required by some crap on a Web page. It may
not quit when I quit firefox either, and sometimes it's responsible for
keeping a firefox process running in background.

The answer is, Hell, no.

In article bje@ripco.com says...
> Obnoxious maybe, evil, probably not.
> 
> From what I understand (which is little), Chrome is unique because it's a
> sandboxed browser. Other words, you shouldn't be able to hit a malicious
> website which can grab your contacts/address book, plant viruses and so
> forth.

The thing that ticks me off is that I wasn't even using Chrome for 
anything.  I installed it to try it out, didn't quite like it because I 
have everything just so with Firefox, and just never bothered to 
uninstall.  When I saw chrome_installer.exe in the http requests I had 
completely forgot I even installed Chrome so it was a complete WTF for 
awhile.

Also, like you said about accidentally doing something and having it go 
haywire, after reviewing more logs there might have been something I did 
that triggered the google updater to go haywire.  I'm not that 
interested in figuring that out however.

Any software that does this I consider malicious.  Software should only 
speak when spoken to.  So if Chrome is not being used, it means I don't 
give a crap about any of its updates.  I remember awhile back installing 
Google's Picassa on a linux box and the damned program, before letting 
me set the gallery directory, scanned my entire hard drive for images.  
Picassa got deleted immediately once I heard the hard drives stop 
crunching.

On Sat, 29 Sep 2012 16:37:03 -0400, Mark Anderson <mea@nospambradnylion.com>
wrote:

>In article bje@ripco.com says...
>> Obnoxious maybe, evil, probably not.
>> 
>> From what I understand (which is little), Chrome is unique because it's a
>> sandboxed browser. Other words, you shouldn't be able to hit a malicious
>> website which can grab your contacts/address book, plant viruses and so
>> forth.
>
>The thing that ticks me off is that I wasn't even using Chrome for 
>anything.  I installed it to try it out, didn't quite like it because I 
>have everything just so with Firefox, and just never bothered to 
>uninstall.  When I saw chrome_installer.exe in the http requests I had 
>completely forgot I even installed Chrome so it was a complete WTF for 
>awhile.
>
>Also, like you said about accidentally doing something and having it go 
>haywire, after reviewing more logs there might have been something I did 
>that triggered the google updater to go haywire.  I'm not that 
>interested in figuring that out however.
>
>Any software that does this I consider malicious.  Software should only 
>speak when spoken to.  So if Chrome is not being used, it means I don't 
>give a crap about any of its updates.  I remember awhile back installing 
>Google's Picassa on a linux box and the damned program, before letting 
>me set the gallery directory, scanned my entire hard drive for images.  
>Picassa got deleted immediately once I heard the hard drives stop 
>crunching.
>

Google is evil. It wants to own your device no matter if it's a pc, a tabler,
or a phone.

I had Google Maps installed on  my tablet. The latest update came out and the
list of 'permissions' it wanted was absurd. It wanted everything. I deleted
the APP entirely.  If I need a map I'll go to the web.

On 2012-09-29, Bruce Esquibel <bje@ripco.com> wrote:
> Mark Anderson <mea@nospambradnylion.com> wrote:
>> Since no one posts here I thought I'd try and add something interesting.  
>> I put my PC on a quiet subnet to check on something and noticed google 
>> updates was phoning home every single minute using http with a rather 
>> lengthy session.  This chatter was filling up my logs so I investigated 
>> and found an installation of google chrome had 3 processes running.  
>> After uninstalling google chrome all went away and my laptop is as quiet 
>> as a church mouse on the network.  Since I use firefox exclusively I 
>> completely forgot I installed Chrome a bunch of months ago  to try it 
>> out.  I didn't know that having it installed meant that they could set 
>> up shop on my PC!  And this much activity is rather obnoxious IMHO.
>
>
>
> Obnoxious maybe, evil, probably not.
>
> From what I understand (which is little), Chrome is unique because it's a
> sandboxed browser. Other words, you shouldn't be able to hit a malicious
> website which can grab your contacts/address book, plant viruses and so
> forth.
>
> It's completely self-contained meaning it doesn't communicate or need calls
> from the operating system and stays where it belongs.
>
> To get that to work, it needs to launch a bunch of background processes,
> everything from the extentions you have loaded to the printer and updater.
> These have to be in the sandbox with the application since they can't be
> called if not there.
>
> I guess the main question is if they should continue to run after the main
> application quits. I dunno. 

There's an option to control this. It's on by default, naturally.

-- 

Kristian M Zoerhoff

On 2012-09-29, core <core-usenet@spamless.spook.homeip.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Sep 2012 16:37:03 -0400, Mark Anderson <mea@nospambradnylion.com>
> wrote:
>
>>In article bje@ripco.com says...
>>> Obnoxious maybe, evil, probably not.
>>> 
>>> From what I understand (which is little), Chrome is unique because it's a
>>> sandboxed browser. Other words, you shouldn't be able to hit a malicious
>>> website which can grab your contacts/address book, plant viruses and so
>>> forth.
>>
>>The thing that ticks me off is that I wasn't even using Chrome for 
>>anything.  I installed it to try it out, didn't quite like it because I 
>>have everything just so with Firefox, and just never bothered to 
>>uninstall.  When I saw chrome_installer.exe in the http requests I had 
>>completely forgot I even installed Chrome so it was a complete WTF for 
>>awhile.
>>
>>Also, like you said about accidentally doing something and having it go 
>>haywire, after reviewing more logs there might have been something I did 
>>that triggered the google updater to go haywire.  I'm not that 
>>interested in figuring that out however.
>>
>>Any software that does this I consider malicious.  Software should only 
>>speak when spoken to.  So if Chrome is not being used, it means I don't 
>>give a crap about any of its updates.  I remember awhile back installing 
>>Google's Picassa on a linux box and the damned program, before letting 
>>me set the gallery directory, scanned my entire hard drive for images.  
>>Picassa got deleted immediately once I heard the hard drives stop 
>>crunching.
>>
>
> Google is evil. It wants to own your device no matter if it's a pc, a tabler,
> or a phone.
>
> I had Google Maps installed on  my tablet. The latest update came out and the
> list of 'permissions' it wanted was absurd. It wanted everything. I deleted
> the APP entirely.  If I need a map I'll go to the web.

Use ForeverMap or OsmAnd. 

-- 

Kristian M Zoerhoff

Mark Anderson <mea@nospambradnylion.com> wrote:
> Since no one posts here I thought I'd try and add something interesting.  
> I put my PC on a quiet subnet to check on something and noticed google 
> updates was phoning home every single minute using http with a rather 
> lengthy session.  This chatter was filling up my logs so I investigated 

snooping on you no doubt.

don't trust google.

In article presence@MUNGEpanix.com says...
> > Since no one posts here I thought I'd try and add something interesting.  
> > I put my PC on a quiet subnet to check on something and noticed google 
> > updates was phoning home every single minute using http with a rather 
> > lengthy session.  This chatter was filling up my logs so I investigated 
> 
> snooping on you no doubt.
> 
> don't trust google.

I try to keep the snooping to a minimum but realize being snooped upon 
is one of the costs of using the tubes.  I like running a clean PC -- no 
useless running process, no bullshit traffic.  A clean PC is a secure 
PC.  Windows is very chatty on the LAN and pretty god damned stupid 
about it.  There's a good reason why Windows users get hacked on 
unsecured networks -- they broadcast all kinds of useless bullshit so 
the bad guys don't even need a scanner to ID them as a target.

I almost have my laptop completely silent.  I still have some IGMP and 
LLMNR traffic to that multi-cast address that I can't stop because 
apparently I'm using the el cheapo Home version of Windows 7 so I can't 
make the necessary registry changes.  Fucking greedy Windows 
motherfuckers.  Firefox keeps phoning home for update info even after I 
turned that off in the options.  I'm not so concerned about that but 
don't understand why they can't just phone home once when the browser 
starts and be done with it.

Mark Anderson <mea@nospambradnylion.com> wrote:
> In article presence@MUNGEpanix.com says...
>> > Since no one posts here I thought I'd try and add something interesting.  
>> > I put my PC on a quiet subnet to check on something and noticed google 
>> > updates was phoning home every single minute using http with a rather 
>> > lengthy session.  This chatter was filling up my logs so I investigated 
>> 
>> snooping on you no doubt.
>> 
>> don't trust google.
> 
> I try to keep the snooping to a minimum but realize being snooped upon 
> is one of the costs of using the tubes.  I like running a clean PC -- no 
> useless running process, no bullshit traffic.  A clean PC is a secure 
> PC.  Windows is very chatty on the LAN and pretty god damned stupid 
> about it.  There's a good reason why Windows users get hacked on 
> unsecured networks -- they broadcast all kinds of useless bullshit so 
> the bad guys don't even need a scanner to ID them as a target.
> 
> I almost have my laptop completely silent.  I still have some IGMP and 
> LLMNR traffic to that multi-cast address that I can't stop because 
> apparently I'm using the el cheapo Home version of Windows 7 so I can't 
> make the necessary registry changes.  Fucking greedy Windows 
> motherfuckers.  Firefox keeps phoning home for update info even after I 
> turned that off in the options.  I'm not so concerned about that but 
> don't understand why they can't just phone home once when the browser 
> starts and be done with it.

just use IE and stop dicking around.

other browsers are junk.

On 2012-10-02 11:00, Cydrome Leader wrote:
> Mark Anderson <mea@nospambradnylion.com> wrote:
>> In article presence@MUNGEpanix.com says...
>>>> Since no one posts here I thought I'd try and add something interesting.  
>>>> I put my PC on a quiet subnet to check on something and noticed google 
>>>> updates was phoning home every single minute using http with a rather 
>>>> lengthy session.  This chatter was filling up my logs so I investigated 
>>>
>>> snooping on you no doubt.
>>>
>>> don't trust google.
>>
>> I try to keep the snooping to a minimum but realize being snooped upon 
>> is one of the costs of using the tubes.  I like running a clean PC -- no 
>> useless running process, no bullshit traffic.  A clean PC is a secure 
>> PC.  Windows is very chatty on the LAN and pretty god damned stupid 
>> about it.  There's a good reason why Windows users get hacked on 
>> unsecured networks -- they broadcast all kinds of useless bullshit so 
>> the bad guys don't even need a scanner to ID them as a target.
>>
>> I almost have my laptop completely silent.  I still have some IGMP and 
>> LLMNR traffic to that multi-cast address that I can't stop because 
>> apparently I'm using the el cheapo Home version of Windows 7 so I can't 
>> make the necessary registry changes.  Fucking greedy Windows 
>> motherfuckers.  Firefox keeps phoning home for update info even after I 
>> turned that off in the options.  I'm not so concerned about that but 
>> don't understand why they can't just phone home once when the browser 
>> starts and be done with it.
> 
> just use IE and stop dicking around.

You might as well fuck a syphilitic hooker sans condom. IE is
first-class garbage, and a giant pulsing sphincter of a security hole.

> other browsers are junk.

Chrome with plugins disabled works fine, and it's even better with
AdBlock+ and DoNotTrack+. Firefox's memory bloat is inexcusable.

Kristian M Zoerhoff <kmz@lavabit.com> wrote:
> On 2012-10-02 11:00, Cydrome Leader wrote:
>> Mark Anderson <mea@nospambradnylion.com> wrote:
>>> In article presence@MUNGEpanix.com says...
>>>>> Since no one posts here I thought I'd try and add something interesting.  
>>>>> I put my PC on a quiet subnet to check on something and noticed google 
>>>>> updates was phoning home every single minute using http with a rather 
>>>>> lengthy session.  This chatter was filling up my logs so I investigated 
>>>>
>>>> snooping on you no doubt.
>>>>
>>>> don't trust google.
>>>
>>> I try to keep the snooping to a minimum but realize being snooped upon 
>>> is one of the costs of using the tubes.  I like running a clean PC -- no 
>>> useless running process, no bullshit traffic.  A clean PC is a secure 
>>> PC.  Windows is very chatty on the LAN and pretty god damned stupid 
>>> about it.  There's a good reason why Windows users get hacked on 
>>> unsecured networks -- they broadcast all kinds of useless bullshit so 
>>> the bad guys don't even need a scanner to ID them as a target.
>>>
>>> I almost have my laptop completely silent.  I still have some IGMP and 
>>> LLMNR traffic to that multi-cast address that I can't stop because 
>>> apparently I'm using the el cheapo Home version of Windows 7 so I can't 
>>> make the necessary registry changes.  Fucking greedy Windows 
>>> motherfuckers.  Firefox keeps phoning home for update info even after I 
>>> turned that off in the options.  I'm not so concerned about that but 
>>> don't understand why they can't just phone home once when the browser 
>>> starts and be done with it.
>> 
>> just use IE and stop dicking around.
> 
> You might as well fuck a syphilitic hooker sans condom. IE is
> first-class garbage, and a giant pulsing sphincter of a security hole.
> 
>> other browsers are junk.
> 
> Chrome with plugins disabled works fine, and it's even better with
> AdBlock+ and DoNotTrack+. Firefox's memory bloat is inexcusable.

It's always firefox assholes bitching and moaning about how computers are 
too hard and everything is broken.

IE works fine for everything I do, and it's not sending my registry back 
to google or apple every 30 seconds, or using all 31 bits of memory it can 
address before crashing like acrobat reader.

In article presence@MUNGEpanix.com says...
> > Chrome with plugins disabled works fine, and it's even better with
> > AdBlock+ and DoNotTrack+. Firefox's memory bloat is inexcusable.
> 
> It's always firefox assholes bitching and moaning about how computers are 
> too hard and everything is broken.
> 
> IE works fine for everything I do, and it's not sending my registry back 
> to google or apple every 30 seconds, or using all 31 bits of memory it can 
> address before crashing like acrobat reader.

I thought you were joking about IE.  I fired up IE to check it out and 
after dealing with all the parasitic apps that placed a toolbar into IE 
the browser was pretty quiet.  Using IE means I'd have to chase windows  
software updates.  I only update my windows boxes about once a year -- 
about the same schedule as changing the smoke alarm batteries.  I rarely 
ever update apps.

Got rid of the firefox update BS but there was some tom foolery 
involved.  Had to manually delete some files in Firefox' AppData 
directory.  Full info here:

http://support.mozilla.org/en-US/questions/925940

Also you can turn off safe browsing by doing this:

http://avinashtech.com/google/disable-google-safe-browsing-firefox/

Mark Anderson <mea@nospambradnylion.com> wrote:
> In article presence@MUNGEpanix.com says...
>> > Chrome with plugins disabled works fine, and it's even better with
>> > AdBlock+ and DoNotTrack+. Firefox's memory bloat is inexcusable.
>> 
>> It's always firefox assholes bitching and moaning about how computers are 
>> too hard and everything is broken.
>> 
>> IE works fine for everything I do, and it's not sending my registry back 
>> to google or apple every 30 seconds, or using all 31 bits of memory it can 
>> address before crashing like acrobat reader.
> 
> I thought you were joking about IE.  I fired up IE to check it out and 
> after dealing with all the parasitic apps that placed a toolbar into IE 
> the browser was pretty quiet.  Using IE means I'd have to chase windows  
> software updates.  I only update my windows boxes about once a year -- 

wrong. it's automatic. there's nothing to chase. windows is easy, it 
really is. Once in a while when you shut down it installs some updates. 
Big deal. Windows defender or security essentials or whatever it's called 
just updates all the time itself. 


> about the same schedule as changing the smoke alarm batteries.  I rarely 
> ever update apps.

you sure waste alot of time screwing around with shit browers when your 
computer already has one that actually works, doesn't spy on you and 
doesn't suck. You're just making stuff hard for no reason.

> Got rid of the firefox update BS but there was some tom foolery 
> involved.  Had to manually delete some files in Firefox' AppData 
> directory.  Full info here:
> 
> http://support.mozilla.org/en-US/questions/925940
> 
> Also you can turn off safe browsing by doing this:
> 
> http://avinashtech.com/google/disable-google-safe-browsing-firefox/
> 
> 

Cydrome Leader <presence@MUNGEpanix.com> wrote:

>wrong. it's automatic. there's nothing to chase. windows is easy, it 
>really is. Once in a while when you shut down it installs some updates. 
>Big deal. Windows defender or security essentials or whatever it's called 
>just updates all the time itself. 

Windows Defender was the fucked up anti-virus program that everyone hated.
No one should still be using it.

fwiw, I use Microsoft Security Essentials, but it's never found anything.

In article presence@MUNGEpanix.com says...
> > I thought you were joking about IE.  I fired up IE to check it out and 
> > after dealing with all the parasitic apps that placed a toolbar into IE 
> > the browser was pretty quiet.  Using IE means I'd have to chase windows  
> > software updates.  I only update my windows boxes about once a year -- 
> 
> wrong. it's automatic. there's nothing to chase. windows is easy, it 
> really is. Once in a while when you shut down it installs some updates. 
> Big deal. Windows defender or security essentials or whatever it's called 
> just updates all the time itself. 

Automatic is even worse.  You never want to interrupt a software upgrade 
and if I don't know when it happens I don't know when to be careful.  
Plus, a lot of upgrades break things and are basically useless.  
Microsoft needs you to keep sucking its tit so the company remains 
relevant.

The old axiom that if it ain't broke don't fix it still holds true.

> you sure waste alot of time screwing around with shit browers when 
your 
> computer already has one that actually works, doesn't spy on you and 
> doesn't suck. You're just making stuff hard for no reason.

If it weren't for people like you who cling to IE the economy of the web 
couldn't possibly sustain itself.  The web needs eyeballs on its ads.  
Personally, I don't like seeing ads and I rarely ever see one.  Why?  
Adblock Plus.  

It is my philosophy on PC security that you must diversify.  I don't not 
use IE because it sucks, I use Firefox because it's not Microsoft.  I 
don't avoid Outlook because it sucks.  You shouldn't run email from the 
same company that makes your OS -- especially when there are plenty of 
alternatives.

You can put all your eggs in one basket.  Whatever floats your boat.  

BTW: As for Firefox "spying," I got rid of all its chatter but kept the 
google safebrowsing because it only does that every half hour.

On 2012-10-03 14:12, Mark Anderson wrote:
> In article presence@MUNGEpanix.com says...
>>> I thought you were joking about IE.  I fired up IE to check it out and 
>>> after dealing with all the parasitic apps that placed a toolbar into IE 
>>> the browser was pretty quiet.  Using IE means I'd have to chase windows  
>>> software updates.  I only update my windows boxes about once a year -- 
>>
>> wrong. it's automatic. there's nothing to chase. windows is easy, it 
>> really is. Once in a while when you shut down it installs some updates. 
>> Big deal. Windows defender or security essentials or whatever it's called 
>> just updates all the time itself. 
> 
> Automatic is even worse.  You never want to interrupt a software upgrade 
> and if I don't know when it happens I don't know when to be careful.  
> Plus, a lot of upgrades break things and are basically useless.  
> Microsoft needs you to keep sucking its tit so the company remains 
> relevant.
> 
> The old axiom that if it ain't broke don't fix it still holds true.

On a PC, you must assume it's already broken. The update may make it
more broken, but not likely. Unless it's from Adobe or Oracle.

Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> Cydrome Leader <presence@MUNGEpanix.com> wrote:
> 
>>wrong. it's automatic. there's nothing to chase. windows is easy, it 
>>really is. Once in a while when you shut down it installs some updates. 
>>Big deal. Windows defender or security essentials or whatever it's called 
>>just updates all the time itself. 
> 
> Windows Defender was the fucked up anti-virus program that everyone hated.
> No one should still be using it.
> 
> fwiw, I use Microsoft Security Essentials, but it's never found anything.

same thing- the free thing from MS what works fine and doesn't get in your 
face about stuff.

In article presence@MUNGEpanix.com says...
> > fwiw, I use Microsoft Security Essentials, but it's never found anything.
> 
> same thing- the free thing from MS what works fine and doesn't get in your 
> face about stuff.

Security and firewalls should be handled at the kernel level which is 
the bailiwick of the company who developed the OS.  I trust MS handling 
my firewall, just not at the app level.

Mark Anderson <mea@nospambradnylion.com> wrote:
> In article presence@MUNGEpanix.com says...
>> > I thought you were joking about IE.  I fired up IE to check it out and 
>> > after dealing with all the parasitic apps that placed a toolbar into IE 
>> > the browser was pretty quiet.  Using IE means I'd have to chase windows  
>> > software updates.  I only update my windows boxes about once a year -- 
>> 
>> wrong. it's automatic. there's nothing to chase. windows is easy, it 
>> really is. Once in a while when you shut down it installs some updates. 
>> Big deal. Windows defender or security essentials or whatever it's called 
>> just updates all the time itself. 
> 
> Automatic is even worse.  You never want to interrupt a software upgrade 
> and if I don't know when it happens I don't know when to be careful.  
> Plus, a lot of upgrades break things and are basically useless.  
> Microsoft needs you to keep sucking its tit so the company remains 
> relevant.

really?

can you list three updates that fucked you over? Either the patch number 
or KB will work for me.

> The old axiom that if it ain't broke don't fix it still holds true.
> 
>> you sure waste alot of time screwing around with shit browers when 
> your 
>> computer already has one that actually works, doesn't spy on you and 
>> doesn't suck. You're just making stuff hard for no reason.
> 
> If it weren't for people like you who cling to IE the economy of the web 
> couldn't possibly sustain itself.  The web needs eyeballs on its ads.  
> Personally, I don't like seeing ads and I rarely ever see one.  Why?  
> Adblock Plus.  

People like me are why there is an economy in the web. Half the time 
something is "broken" during internal testing here it's yet another 
firefox bug. The thing is flakey. It's ok to browse some crap "funny" 
websites, but I'll be damned if I do online banking on the thing or have 
to use a some webapp that will waste 10 minutes of my time to relogin to 
if the browser freezes up, crashes or renders stuff wrong.

firefox is a load of shit, sort of like the netscape browers. they've come 
full circle already.

> It is my philosophy on PC security that you must diversify.  I don't not 
> use IE because it sucks, I use Firefox because it's not Microsoft.  I 
> don't avoid Outlook because it sucks.  You shouldn't run email from the 
> same company that makes your OS -- especially when there are plenty of 
> alternatives.

your philosophy is bullshit.

> You can put all your eggs in one basket.  Whatever floats your boat.  
> 
> BTW: As for Firefox "spying," I got rid of all its chatter but kept the 
> google safebrowsing because it only does that every half hour.

while you were spending 18 hours configuring a browser, I was doing actual 
work and not reinventing the wheel, getting lost in philosophical day 
dreams, or blogging about how it's imperative to not run outlook, because 
it comes from microsoft. Just too out the part where you might want to 
connect to an exchange server, if you're employed.

you're insane.

Kristian M Zoerhoff <kmz@lavabit.com> wrote:
> On 2012-10-03 14:12, Mark Anderson wrote:
>> In article presence@MUNGEpanix.com says...
>>>> I thought you were joking about IE.  I fired up IE to check it out and 
>>>> after dealing with all the parasitic apps that placed a toolbar into IE 
>>>> the browser was pretty quiet.  Using IE means I'd have to chase windows  
>>>> software updates.  I only update my windows boxes about once a year -- 
>>>
>>> wrong. it's automatic. there's nothing to chase. windows is easy, it 
>>> really is. Once in a while when you shut down it installs some updates. 
>>> Big deal. Windows defender or security essentials or whatever it's called 
>>> just updates all the time itself. 
>> 
>> Automatic is even worse.  You never want to interrupt a software upgrade 
>> and if I don't know when it happens I don't know when to be careful.  
>> Plus, a lot of upgrades break things and are basically useless.  
>> Microsoft needs you to keep sucking its tit so the company remains 
>> relevant.
>> 
>> The old axiom that if it ain't broke don't fix it still holds true.
> 
> On a PC, you must assume it's already broken. The update may make it
> more broken, but not likely. Unless it's from Adobe or Oracle.

I like how acrobat 4 was the last version that didn't nag for updates or 
use 100% cpu or just crash for no reason. 

On Wed, 3 Oct 2012 20:49:46 +0000 (UTC), Cydrome Leader wrote:

> you're insane.

Hope you have this copied to your clipboard if you're going to keep this
thread with Anderson going.

-- 
smr

Mark Anderson <mea@nospambradnylion.com> wrote:
> In article presence@MUNGEpanix.com says...
>> > fwiw, I use Microsoft Security Essentials, but it's never found anything.
>> 
>> same thing- the free thing from MS what works fine and doesn't get in your 
>> face about stuff.
> 
> Security and firewalls should be handled at the kernel level which is 
> the bailiwick of the company who developed the OS.  I trust MS handling 
> my firewall, just not at the app level.

The host you're protecting is not the place to run the firewall.

smr <me@shawnritchie.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Oct 2012 20:49:46 +0000 (UTC), Cydrome Leader wrote:
> 
>> you're insane.
> 
> Hope you have this copied to your clipboard if you're going to keep this
> thread with Anderson going.

I'm starting to wondering if he's some funny uncle in the nelson clan.

They guy can't secure his house against giant rodents. He stands no chance 
against some 12 year old russian with a sharp zaurus, acoustic coupler and 
a payphone.

In article presence@MUNGEpanix.com says...
> I'm starting to wondering if he's some funny uncle in the nelson clan.

I'd say the same about you since you're the one behaving like an inbred 
mental retard.

> They guy can't secure his house against giant rodents. He stands no chance 
> against some 12 year old russian with a sharp zaurus, acoustic coupler and 
> a payphone.

Wow.  That put me in my place.  That sounds like one of those smr brain 
farts after too much booze.  

In article presence@MUNGEpanix.com says...
> > Security and firewalls should be handled at the kernel level which is 
> > the bailiwick of the company who developed the OS.  I trust MS handling 
> > my firewall, just not at the app level.
> 
> The host you're protecting is not the place to run the firewall.

Ideally yes but you already know I'm talking about your standard host 
based firewall and you just want to play the dumb retard here.

In article presence@MUNGEpanix.com says...
> People like me are why there is an economy in the web. Half the time 
> something is "broken" during internal testing here it's yet another 
> firefox bug. The thing is flakey. 

Just because your developers are incompetent does not make it Firefox' 
problem.

Mark Anderson <mea@nospambradnylion.com> wrote:
> In article presence@MUNGEpanix.com says...
>> > Security and firewalls should be handled at the kernel level which is 
>> > the bailiwick of the company who developed the OS.  I trust MS handling 
>> > my firewall, just not at the app level.
>> 
>> The host you're protecting is not the place to run the firewall.
> 
> Ideally yes but you already know I'm talking about your standard host 
> based firewall and you just want to play the dumb retard here.

yes, I know you're talking about your phoney half-assed fake security 
minded rube goldberg project.

Mark Anderson <mea@nospambradnylion.com> wrote:
> In article presence@MUNGEpanix.com says...
>> People like me are why there is an economy in the web. Half the time 
>> something is "broken" during internal testing here it's yet another 
>> firefox bug. The thing is flakey. 
> 
> Just because your developers are incompetent does not make it Firefox' 
> problem.

yeah, our developers write firefox bugs.

firefox is a buggy bloatware piece of shit with numerious SSL certifcate 
database problems they won't ever fix.

Cydrome Leader <presence@MUNGEpanix.com> wrote:
>Mark Anderson <mea@nospambradnylion.com> wrote:
>>presence@MUNGEpanix.com says...

>>>>fwiw, I use Microsoft Security Essentials, but it's never found anything.

>>>same thing- the free thing from MS what works fine and doesn't get in your 
>>>face about stuff.

>>Security and firewalls should be handled at the kernel level which is 
>>the bailiwick of the company who developed the OS.  I trust MS handling 
>>my firewall, just not at the app level.

>The host you're protecting is not the place to run the firewall.

'Tis why I never use it.