A suggestion for next month's Malicious Software Removal download

[Tom Willett]

Net Nanny.

||
| So while you're top-posting, I'll either be correcting the top-posting,
| so that the context makes sense, or deleting the entire text beneath
| your post, because it's just too much work, and I don't really care if
| you make sense or not. <beg>
|

 

[Rhonda Lea Kirk]

POP wrote:

I'm not going to argue with you, Pop, except about this:

So I reinstalled it, no problem.

You didn't have to reinstall it; only tick the box to redisplay
it. A little research might be inorder for you.

Indeed. A little research was required.

Read this again:

But I'll tell

The volume control doesn't, or shouldn't, display in the task
bar; it displays in the system tray.
What was the error message that would send her to add/remove
for this? What produced it?

I said "task bar," I meant "system tray," but that's not really relevant
to the problem.

The volume icon was not where it was supposed to be because QuikSet was
handling the volume function, and the volume control was either broken
or never installed, thus:

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;Q319095

"Volume Icon Is Not Displayed in the Notification Area, and You Receive
an Error Message When You Try to Add It"

This is the error message that I received, which is cited in the
article:

"Windows cannot display the volume control on the taskbar because the
Volume Control program has not been installed. To install it use
Add/Remove Programs in Control Panel."

Read the article, and tell me where in there it says you can reinstall
it using Add/Remove Programs.

It's not there.

But as I said, Fran would still be there looking.

Sounds like that was her first mistake. Rather than setting up
protection for her, and educating her, you went in an adjusted
nuts & bolts all over the place on her, probably making any
instructions she had null & void in the process. Good way to
confuse a newbie.

She had no interest. She did not want to know anything about it. She
wanted to read her email and chat with her friends and surf the net. The
same with my former roommate, who was really in love with Weatherbug,
and her other little piece of $hit programs. Yeah, I explained spyware
to her, but she didn't care.

Don't try to make me responsible for someone else's lack of interest. I
don't know why you do things, but I don't do them to look good--I just
do what needs to be done, because it needs to be done. And I'm not such
a control freak as I think that everyone needs to share my interests and
do what I do.

I can change my oil and do minor maintenance on my car too, but I don't
want to. So I don't. It's just not something I'm interested in. I want
the car to work, period, and for that, I rely on people who know how and
enjoy doing those things.

For some people, a computer really is like any other appliance--they
don't want to know about it, they want it to work, period.

But their refrigerator doesn't spew rotting food into their neighbor's
yard either.

<snipped because I don't feel like dealing with the insulting tone
contained therein>

Let me get this straight: You know UNIX, but not LINUX? lol,
you don't really know much about either, do you? I'm sorry, but
that blows you right out of the water and explains fully to me
why the gal you helped out ran into so much trouble.

Sorry. Doesn't parse. If you can write a paragraph without an insult,
get back to me. There are a lot of gaps in my computer education, and in
the last five months, I've been catching up quite a bit, because I have
no significant experience with Windows in recent years. It's not my
field, it's not my expertise, it's just one of several things I happen
to enjoy fiddling with.

rl

P.S. Everyone who has ever done a tandem skydive thinks they're a
skydiver. After all, someone put a harness on them, and they went out of
the airplane. It doesn't occur to any of them that all they did is take
a ride that could very well have killed them. They had none of the
responsibility for what happened to them, and no way to control their
own fate. They had no idea what to do if a malfunction occurred, and
they had no need to know because they had a seasoned professional riding
their back who knew exactly what to do. (I'm quite sure that right up to
the moment our most recent fatality slipped out of the harness and hit
Mother Earth at 120 mph, that's exactly what she thought too.)

Most computer users are like that. And just as you are not going to get
the casual tandem passenger to take the first jump course and go through
the progression and get a license or four and a rating or three, you are
not going to get the casual computer user to spend the time required to
maintain their computer.

--
Rhonda Lea Kirk

Insisting on perfect safety is for people
without the balls to live in the real world.
Mary Shafer Iliff

 

[Rhonda Lea Kirk]

Net Nanny.

No. Not really. Most of the time it's just an added point when someone
has pissed me off for other reasons. Most recently, it was some putz who
hijacked an OE question to extoll the virtues of Xnews and yENc. It
wasn't a discussion or complaint thread, it was a question, and the guy
needed an answer, not a lecture. So I walloped him for both.

There are some people I really like who top post, and I never say a
word. That's not to say it doesn't drive me crazy when I'm trying to
reply, but it takes all kinds to make a world, and I can live with that.

In this case, however, it took a long time to fix that post so that it
made any kind of sense at all, and something strange kept happening: the
text collapsed--lost all the spaces and hard returns. I finally had to
start over with a brand new post.

For all that, I didn't give him a hard time about the top-posting; I
just made note that the top-posting had been corrected. It was not
intended as a slight, but as a notation of what I had done, very similar
to <snip> when taking out a portion of text.

He's the one who chose to make it an issue, instead of dealing with the
issue, so I dealt with his issue.

rl

P.S. I didn't correct for your top post. In this case, the context is
not particularly important, so it would've been a waste of time.



--
Rhonda Lea Kirk

Insisting on perfect safety is for people
without the balls to live in the real world.
Mary Shafer Iliff

 

[NoStop]

And a Linux, preinstalled, out of the box would be better for newbies is
your contention or should people need a license to use a computer and
need to pay for a course on computing before purchasing one? I'm afraid
the cat is out of the bag on that one.

Alias

Linux out of the box is on the magnitude of a 1000x's more secure than
Windoze. Users can just use Linux and not worry about all the crapware that
plagues Windoze.

--
The ULTIMATE Windoze Fanboy:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2370205018226686613

View Some Common Linux Desktops ...
http://linclips.crocusplains.com/index.php

 

[NoStop]

Alias wrote:



I've always maintained that any new computer purchase should also include
a 10 minute lesson on basic net security - after all, the salesman spends
a lot longer than that trying to persuade the buyer to take out an
extended warranty.... ;-)

There's a tendency in this group to blame the victim. More often than not, I
hear how it is the end-user to blame for all the malware that they get on
their computers. Sure, users should have some knowledge about computers and
computer security. But, the company that's putting out the operating system
should shoulder the main responsibility in this situation. An operating
system shouldn't be released that has the security holes that we've come to
expect with Windoze. The Windoze operating system is badly designed from
its core because it was never designed to be networked with the world.
Linux on the other hand was designed exactly with that in mind. It is a
true multi-user o/s in which the kernel space and the user space are
completely separated. Windoze on the other hand does not separate these two
spaces and therein lies its fundamental problem as a secure operating
system. It is ridiculous that an application can be allowed to run that can
bring down the Windoze kernel or that can write whatever it wants to the
Windoze registry or that can run with admin privileges. In fact, by design
- right out of the box an ordinary Windoze user can have admin privileges.
This was done because MickeyMouse felt it would be too confusing for users
to be locked out of that kind of universal power and in doing so left the
door open for all the malware that comes down the pike. On top of that, new
vulnerabilities are discovered almost every day or so, so that simply
visiting a web site can compromise a Windoze computer no matter how savy
the end-user is. Anti-virus companies have not been able to keep up with
the new vulnerabilities and are always playing catchup. In fact, most of
them don't even search out rootkits on Windoze that allows bots to control
hundreds of thousands of Windoze boxes that are spreading the spam/malware
around the Net. I could go on and on about this, but I'm sure you get the
point, if you're prepared at all to open your eyes.



--
The ULTIMATE Windoze Fanboy:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2370205018226686613

View Some Common Linux Desktops ...
http://linclips.crocusplains.com/index.php

 

[NoStop]

I'll top-post if I want to, TYVM.

Pray tell why MS should be responsible for what a Windows user does with
his/her machine?

If you drove drunk & crashed your Chevy, should GM be held responsible for
it?

Certainly if you drove sober and crashed your Chevy because GM built a car
that had a mechanical defect (like the front tire falling off) then GM
should be held responsible. Well, that's what MickeyMouse has done with its
toy operating system. It has sold you a product with many mechanical
defects and even knowing about them has decided to just patch the problems
when the negative publicity got too hot. It hasn't really corrected the
problem and Fista won't either. That would require a major rewrite and
MickeyMouse doesn't have the talent to do that any longer.


--
The ULTIMATE Windoze Fanboy:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2370205018226686613

View Some Common Linux Desktops ...
http://linclips.crocusplains.com/index.php

 

[Rhonda Lea Kirk]

PA Bear had this to say:

Certainly if you drove sober and crashed your Chevy because GM built
a car that had a mechanical defect (like the front tire falling off)
then GM should be held responsible.

Excellent analogy.

--
Rhonda Lea Kirk

Insisting on perfect safety is for people
without the balls to live in the real world.
Mary Shafer Iliff

 

[Don Taylor]

I'll top-post if I want to, TYVM.

Pray tell why MS should be responsible for what a Windows user does with
his/her machine?

UM... because they are responsible for creating the security hole in the first place?

If you drove drunk & crashed your Chevy, should GM be held responsible for
it?

I don't think you want to start talking about holding Microsoft responsible
in a court of law.