Can't see very simple HTML pages with Norton Internet Security!!!!! - Firewalls

This is a discussion on Can't see very simple HTML pages with Norton Internet Security!!!!! - Firewalls ; ray wrote: >> Linux desktops are not ready; not because they aren't stable or >> capable (arguably). It's because if it goes wrong, it's VERY hard to >> get support, the errors are generally meaningless. There is a very >> ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 48

Thread: Can't see very simple HTML pages with Norton Internet Security!!!!!

  1. Re: Can't see very simple HTML pages with Norton Internet Security!!!!!

    ray wrote:
    >> Linux desktops are not ready; not because they aren't stable or
    >> capable (arguably). It's because if it goes wrong, it's VERY hard to
    >> get support, the errors are generally meaningless. There is a very
    >> thin veneer of a UI in Linux. Cracks into the complex OS world beneath
    >> the UI are all over the place.

    >
    > I see. You have not actually used Linux, have you. Simply spouting the
    > same old mantra.


    Predictable reply from a Linux person?

    I've used Redhat, SuSE and Fedora Core, all in anger. WE don't have any
    Linux machines here any more -- just Macs and our Windows servers.

    >>> The point about malware is: why should I have to keep expending resources
    >>> just because the base OS is so riddled with holes? I've got a lot better
    >>> things to do with my time and money.

    >> Use a Mac.

    >
    > I can't afford a mac, which BTW is based on BSD Unix which is quite
    > similar to Linux.


    Under the hood yes, but what user should care about that? None. It's not
    relevant. Do you know what software my TV runs? No. Because you don't
    need to know.

    And you cannot hold up ANY Linux UI against Tiger.

    >>> I'll reiterate that the patrons at the local library have been happily
    >>> surfing the net, doing office apps, editing pictures, etc. for over two
    >>> years now on Linux desktops and we have yet to hear a complaint. The
    >>> systems just work.

    >> Only because they don't know what they're missing out on.
    >>
    >>> BTW - I've seen the point made many times that profanity is simply a
    >>> crutch for a weak mind. Now I believe it.

    >> Despite Hatters lack of social skills, he has made some valid points.
    >> Unless you have a pet Linux nerd, avoid it like the plague.

    >
    > If you were to actually try it, you might change your mind; but I gather
    > there is little chance of that happening.



    When will people wake up!? Computers are a means to an end. Who cares if
    it's Linux, Windows or OS X. It has to be fit for purpose, do what it's
    supposed to do.


    --

    x theSpaceGirl (miranda)


    ### future media, video, flash, animation @

    # http://www.northleithmill.com


    ### music industry web & promotion @

    # http://www.digitalharmony.co.uk


    # Remove NO SPAM to email

    # This message must not be reproduced anywhere but Usenet & GoogleGroups

    # Copyright (c) digitalharmony

  2. Re: Can't see very simple HTML pages with Norton Internet Security!!!!!

    ray wrote:

    >> Unless you have a pet Linux nerd, avoid it like the plague.

    >
    > If you were to actually try it, you might change your mind; but I gather
    > there is little chance of that happening.


    Ray, don't bother - you're talking to the 'eat **** - a million flies
    can't be wrong.' brigade!

    Jim Ford

  3. Re: Can't see very simple HTML pages with Norton Internet Security!!!!!

    In comp.security.firewalls ray wrote:
    > I can't afford a mac


    MacMinis are cheap.

    > which BTW is based on BSD Unix which is quite
    > similar to Linux.


    The BSD in a Mac is quite strange ;-) Have a look at this perverted
    peace of software Apple is calling a "kernel" ;-)

    Yours,
    VB.
    --
    "Terror eignet sich mehr als irgendeine andere militärische Strategie dazu,
    die Bevölkerung zu manipulieren."
    (Dr. Daniele Ganser, 2005)


  4. Re: Can't see very simple HTML pages with Norton Internet Security!!!!!

    In comp.security.firewalls SpaceGirl wrote:
    > And you cannot hold up ANY Linux UI against Tiger.


    Depends on what you need. Actually, we're using Macs with OSX for all of
    our non-technicians. I'm personally writing this on a MacBook Pro. But
    for daily work, I prefer Fluxbox on Debian GNU/Linux (coming from
    WindowMaker), because it's so much faster. Of course, I'm typting this
    text into a terminal, which is connected via SSH to a Slowlaris machine
    anyways ;-)

    > When will people wake up!? Computers are a means to an end. Who cares if
    > it's Linux, Windows or OS X. It has to be fit for purpose, do what it's
    > supposed to do.


    Yes.

    > # This message must not be reproduced anywhere but Usenet & GoogleGroups


    Ridiculous.

    Yours,
    VB.
    --
    "Terror eignet sich mehr als irgendeine andere militärische Strategie dazu,
    die Bevölkerung zu manipulieren."
    (Dr. Daniele Ganser, 2005)


  5. Re: Can't see very simple HTML pages with Norton Internet Security!!!!!

    ray wrote:
    > On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 17:49:15 +0100, SpaceGirl wrote:
    >
    >> ray wrote:
    >>>> Linux desktops are not ready; not because they aren't stable or
    >>>> capable (arguably). It's because if it goes wrong, it's VERY hard to
    >>>> get support, the errors are generally meaningless. There is a very
    >>>> thin veneer of a UI in Linux. Cracks into the complex OS world beneath
    >>>> the UI are all over the place.
    >>> I see. You have not actually used Linux, have you. Simply spouting the
    >>> same old mantra.

    >> Predictable reply from a Linux person?
    >>
    >> I've used Redhat, SuSE and Fedora Core, all in anger. WE don't have any
    >> Linux machines here any more -- just Macs and our Windows servers.

    >
    > When? Certainly not within the last year or two or you would know that
    > Adobe now has a Linux 'flash' plugin available from it's website.
    >


    That's the Flash Player, love. Not Flash itself. If you actually want to
    create Flash on Linux you're screwed.

    >> Under the hood yes, but what user should care about that? None. It's not
    >> relevant. Do you know what software my TV runs? No. Because you don't
    >> need to know.

    >
    > Most users should care because it reflects immediately on both security
    > and stability. What good does it do to have the 'best' software in the
    > world that cost you hundreds of dollars if the machine keeps crashing.


    No they shouldn't Do you need to know how your car works to drive it?

    >> And you cannot hold up ANY Linux UI against Tiger.

    >
    > Sure I can. Any of a dozen or more.


    Name one that even comes close.

    >> When will people wake up!? Computers are a means to an end. Who cares if
    >> it's Linux, Windows or OS X. It has to be fit for purpose, do what it's
    >> supposed to do.

    >
    > Exactly. And I maintain that MS is not fit for the job for the average
    > users for two reasons (both ameleorated by running Linux) - it costs too
    > much (plus the several hundred dollars you need to make it productive) and
    > it takes too much admin time to keep it running safely.


    I agree with that!


    --

    x theSpaceGirl (miranda)


    ### future media, video, flash, animation @

    # http://www.northleithmill.com


    ### music industry web & promotion @

    # http://www.digitalharmony.co.uk


    # Remove NO SPAM to email

    # This message must not be reproduced anywhere but Usenet & GoogleGroups

    # Copyright (c) digitalharmony

  6. Re: Can't see very simple HTML pages with Norton InternetSecurity!!!!!

    On 4/5/07 11:49 AM, SpaceGirl commented:

    > When will people wake up!? Computers are a means to an end. Who cares if
    > it's Linux, Windows or OS X. It has to be fit for purpose, do what it's
    > supposed to do.


    That's me all over. To me it's a tool and the simpler, safer and more
    foolproof its technology is the better because I don't want to deal with it.
    That's why I miss my old Mac OS

    I know there are techies who care more about the guts & programming, but
    real world computers have to work and interface for the rest of us without,
    sans l'hassle.


  7. Re: Can't see very simple HTML pages with Norton Internet Security!!!!!

    On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 22:06:07 +0100, SpaceGirl wrote:

    > ray wrote:
    >> On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 17:49:15 +0100, SpaceGirl wrote:
    >>
    >>> ray wrote:
    >>>>> Linux desktops are not ready; not because they aren't stable or
    >>>>> capable (arguably). It's because if it goes wrong, it's VERY hard to
    >>>>> get support, the errors are generally meaningless. There is a very
    >>>>> thin veneer of a UI in Linux. Cracks into the complex OS world beneath
    >>>>> the UI are all over the place.
    >>>> I see. You have not actually used Linux, have you. Simply spouting the
    >>>> same old mantra.
    >>> Predictable reply from a Linux person?
    >>>
    >>> I've used Redhat, SuSE and Fedora Core, all in anger. WE don't have any
    >>> Linux machines here any more -- just Macs and our Windows servers.

    >>
    >> When? Certainly not within the last year or two or you would know that
    >> Adobe now has a Linux 'flash' plugin available from it's website.
    >>

    >
    > That's the Flash Player, love. Not Flash itself. If you actually want to
    > create Flash on Linux you're screwed.


    That's OK, dearie. I don't want to. BTW what part of "there are good
    reasons for selecting one OS over the other" is it that you don't get?


    >
    >>> Under the hood yes, but what user should care about that? None. It's not
    >>> relevant. Do you know what software my TV runs? No. Because you don't
    >>> need to know.

    >>
    >> Most users should care because it reflects immediately on both security
    >> and stability. What good does it do to have the 'best' software in the
    >> world that cost you hundreds of dollars if the machine keeps crashing.

    >
    > No they shouldn't Do you need to know how your car works to drive it?


    That depends on whether I need to fix it on a daily basis.

    >
    >>> And you cannot hold up ANY Linux UI against Tiger.

    >>
    >> Sure I can. Any of a dozen or more.

    >
    > Name one that even comes close.


    My opinion will probably be different from yours - I happen to think
    gnome, xfce, and enlightenment are perfectly acceptable.

    >
    >>> When will people wake up!? Computers are a means to an end. Who cares if
    >>> it's Linux, Windows or OS X. It has to be fit for purpose, do what it's
    >>> supposed to do.

    >>
    >> Exactly. And I maintain that MS is not fit for the job for the average
    >> users for two reasons (both ameleorated by running Linux) - it costs too
    >> much (plus the several hundred dollars you need to make it productive) and
    >> it takes too much admin time to keep it running safely.

    >
    > I agree with that!



  8. Re: Can't see very simple HTML pages with Norton Internet Security!!!!!

    ray wrote:
    > On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 22:06:07 +0100, SpaceGirl wrote:
    >
    >> ray wrote:

    > That's OK, dearie. I don't want to. BTW what part of "there are good
    > reasons for selecting one OS over the other" is it that you don't get?




    There are plenty of good reasons why I WOULD recommend Linux for some
    types of users; but casual users or inexperienced user... Linux isn't
    ready. For lots of reasons. Basic examples being, say if the user wanted
    to use broadband internet, chances are no drivers for their modem (at
    least, none that come with the modem). No games to speak of. No tools
    like iMovie or Windows Movie Maker. None of the linux distros I used had
    any sort of photo management built in (Windows has mediocre support, OS
    X has the excellent iPhoto). Also very little chance they will know
    anyone who can help them fix their computer if it goes wrong, or them
    being able to find a shop that will repair the install should anything
    break. Yes you can find online support, but that's not much good if your
    computer is broken is it? The list goes on and on... Linux simply is NOT
    ready for the average user, and it's some years away from being ready.


    >>>> Under the hood yes, but what user should care about that? None. It's not
    >>>> relevant. Do you know what software my TV runs? No. Because you don't
    >>>> need to know.
    >>> Most users should care because it reflects immediately on both security
    >>> and stability. What good does it do to have the 'best' software in the
    >>> world that cost you hundreds of dollars if the machine keeps crashing.

    >> No they shouldn't Do you need to know how your car works to drive it?

    >
    > That depends on whether I need to fix it on a daily basis.
    >
    >>>> And you cannot hold up ANY Linux UI against Tiger.
    >>> Sure I can. Any of a dozen or more.

    >> Name one that even comes close.

    >
    > My opinion will probably be different from yours - I happen to think
    > gnome, xfce, and enlightenment are perfectly acceptable.


    For an experienced computer person yes. All great programs.

    --

    x theSpaceGirl (miranda)


    ### future media, video, flash, animation @

    # http://www.northleithmill.com


    ### music industry web & promotion @

    # http://www.digitalharmony.co.uk


    # Remove NO SPAM to email

    # This message must not be reproduced anywhere but Usenet & GoogleGroups

    # Copyright (c) digitalharmony

  9. Re: Can't see very simple HTML pages with Norton Internet Security!!!!!

    In article , ray
    wrote:

    > >>> Under the hood yes, but what user should care about that? None. It's not
    > >>> relevant. Do you know what software my TV runs? No. Because you don't
    > >>> need to know.
    > >>
    > >> Most users should care because it reflects immediately on both security
    > >> and stability. What good does it do to have the 'best' software in the
    > >> world that cost you hundreds of dollars if the machine keeps crashing.

    > >
    > > No they shouldn't Do you need to know how your car works to drive it?

    >
    > That depends on whether I need to fix it on a daily basis.


    why would anyone want to use something, regardless of what it is, that
    needs to be fixed on a daily basis?

  10. Re: Can't see very simple HTML pages with Norton Internet Security!!!!!

    On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 03:12:32 -0700, nospam wrote:

    > In article , ray
    > wrote:
    >
    >> >>> Under the hood yes, but what user should care about that? None. It's not
    >> >>> relevant. Do you know what software my TV runs? No. Because you don't
    >> >>> need to know.
    >> >>
    >> >> Most users should care because it reflects immediately on both security
    >> >> and stability. What good does it do to have the 'best' software in the
    >> >> world that cost you hundreds of dollars if the machine keeps crashing.
    >> >
    >> > No they shouldn't Do you need to know how your car works to drive it?

    >>
    >> That depends on whether I need to fix it on a daily basis.

    >
    > why would anyone want to use something, regardless of what it is, that
    > needs to be fixed on a daily basis?


    You'd have to ask all the folks running MS


  11. Re: Can't see very simple HTML pages with Norton Internet Security!!!!!

    On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 11:07:14 +0100, SpaceGirl wrote:

    > ray wrote:
    >> On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 22:06:07 +0100, SpaceGirl wrote:
    >>
    >>> ray wrote:

    >> That's OK, dearie. I don't want to. BTW what part of "there are good
    >> reasons for selecting one OS over the other" is it that you don't get?

    >
    >
    >
    > There are plenty of good reasons why I WOULD recommend Linux for some
    > types of users; but casual users or inexperienced user... Linux isn't
    > ready. For lots of reasons. Basic examples being, say if the user wanted
    > to use broadband internet, chances are no drivers for their modem (at
    > least, none that come with the modem).


    As you evidently don't know, most modern broadband setups today supply a
    modem/router with an ethernet connection. It is a simple matter of
    starting the computer and using a browser to access and setup the
    modem/router and the process is essentially the same for MS, MAC and Linux.

    > No games to speak of.


    That's what they make game consoles for.

    > No tools
    > like iMovie or Windows Movie Maker. None of the linux distros I used had
    > any sort of photo management built in (Windows has mediocre support, OS
    > X has the excellent iPhoto).


    You don't know what you are talking about. There are several such systems
    available with almost every major Linux distribution.

    > Also very little chance they will know
    > anyone who can help them fix their computer if it goes wrong, or them
    > being able to find a shop that will repair the install should anything
    > break.


    The kicker being, of course, that it does not break.

    > Yes you can find online support, but that's not much good if
    > your computer is broken is it?


    Would seem like a compelling reason to start a LUG.

    > The list goes on and on... Linux simply
    > is NOT ready for the average user, and it's some years away from being
    > ready.


    That's your opinion, unsubstantiated by facts. My opinion, backed by 24000
    free software packages and over two years of experience with a Linux setup
    for public internet access is contrary to that. If I had not seen with my
    own eyes eight linux seats running unattended for public internet access
    at the local library with zero complaints for over two years, I might see
    your point - but it is totally irrational.


    >
    >
    >>>>> Under the hood yes, but what user should care about that? None. It's
    >>>>> not relevant. Do you know what software my TV runs? No. Because you
    >>>>> don't need to know.
    >>>> Most users should care because it reflects immediately on both
    >>>> security and stability. What good does it do to have the 'best'
    >>>> software in the world that cost you hundreds of dollars if the
    >>>> machine keeps crashing.
    >>> No they shouldn't Do you need to know how your car works to drive it?

    >>
    >> That depends on whether I need to fix it on a daily basis.
    >>
    >>>>> And you cannot hold up ANY Linux UI against Tiger.
    >>>> Sure I can. Any of a dozen or more.
    >>> Name one that even comes close.

    >>
    >> My opinion will probably be different from yours - I happen to think
    >> gnome, xfce, and enlightenment are perfectly acceptable.

    >
    > For an experienced computer person yes. All great programs.



  12. Re: Can't see very simple HTML pages with Norton Internet Security!!!!!

    In article , ray
    wrote:

    > On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 11:07:14 +0100, SpaceGirl wrote:
    >
    > > The list goes on and on... Linux simply
    > > is NOT ready for the average user, and it's some years away from being
    > > ready.

    >
    > That's your opinion, unsubstantiated by facts. My opinion, backed by 24000
    > free software packages and over two years of experience with a Linux setup
    > for public internet access is contrary to that. If I had not seen with my
    > own eyes eight linux seats running unattended for public internet access
    > at the local library with zero complaints for over two years, I might see
    > your point - but it is totally irrational.


    running a public internet access terminal is hardly the same thing as
    making inroads into the mainstream desktop market.

    wake me up when there's a linux version of adobe creative suite (since
    this is crossposted to a photo newsgroup). or linux support for garmin
    gps or apple's itunes music store. or many others.

  13. Re: Can't see very simple HTML pages with Norton Internet Security!!!!!

    On Apr 3, 8:42 pm, photoguy_...@yahoo.com wrote:
    > Norton! What a pain in the butt!!!
    >
    > I've just spent a few days trying to do something really simple, and
    > I'm furious!!!!
    >
    > I took some pictures on the weekend, and downloaded Web Picture
    > Creator 1.8.
    > Let's put them on my new domain I thought. Yeah right.
    >
    > Web Picture Creator 1.8 worked easily enough. After I cleared out
    > some space.
    > (turned that my hard drive was bad, and that wasted enough hours!)
    >
    > Then I uploaded everything to my domain. The web page loaded.
    > But I can't see the pictures.
    >
    > I call the ISP. They can see the pictures. Hmm!
    >
    > The Norton logs say:
    >
    > Content Blocked:
    >
    > Date Time: 4/3/2007 2:38:55 PM
    > User:
    > Action: Blocked
    > Type: Ad
    > URL:http://www.?domain?.com/?directory?/index.html
    > Data: IMG src="thumbnails/thumb_DSC_0973.JPG" (Reason: width=120
    > height=80)
    >
    > I call Norton and finally get someone in India.
    >
    > Turn off ad blocking, and popup blocking. It works.
    > So, Norton is the culprit.
    >
    > Norton Internet Security
    > Status and settings,
    > Privacy control
    > Configure
    > Advanced
    > Ad blocking
    >
    > Spend about 2 hours with Norton on the phone.
    > The guy's solution: reinstall!
    >
    > I say No way. Send the expert.
    >
    > Eventually get a call back later from Symantec. The brains this
    > time.
    >
    > We install TeamView. From:http://www.dyngate.com/licensing/
    > It allows him to see my machine.
    >
    > He checks the webpage at:
    >
    > http://validator.w3.org/
    >
    > Below are the results of attempting to parse this document with an
    > SGML parser.
    >
    > Error Line 15 column 162: required attribute "ALT" not specified.
    > ...DSC_0961.JPG" width="120" height="80">
    The attribute
    > given above is required for an element that you've used, but you have
    > omitted it. For instance, in most HTML and XHTML document types the
    > "type" attribute is required on the "script" element and the "alt"
    > attribute is required for the "img" element.
    >
    > Typical values for type are type="text/css" for