DDOS attack Microsoft - Microsoft Windows

This is a discussion on DDOS attack Microsoft - Microsoft Windows ; On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 22:45:32 +1200, Max Burke wrote: >> 1) Web sites should look good when viewed at any resolution. (Well, I >> wouldn't worry about less than 640 x 480, unless you're >> specifically targeting a Palm ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 10 of 10 FirstFirst ... 8 9 10
Results 181 to 195 of 195

Thread: DDOS attack Microsoft

  1. Re: DDOS attack Microsoft

    On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 22:45:32 +1200, Max Burke wrote:

    >> 1) Web sites should look good when viewed at any resolution. (Well, I
    >> wouldn't worry about less than 640 x 480, unless you're
    >> specifically targeting a Palm audience.) "Best Viewed at
    >> " annoys anyone who can't, or doesn't want to, devote
    >> that much screen real estate to the browser window.

    >
    > So it's not an actual fault then? I design the pages around the 1024x768
    > screen resolution, therefore that's the best screen size to view them.
    > It's not like I'm forcing anyone to view them at that resolution....
    > ;-)


    Faulty design practice. Proper design practice is "design to look good
    at any size", with 640x480 as the /de facto/ lowest common denominator
    in most cases.

    >> 2) Link text shouldn't include "click here" (or similar), because it
    >> ass-u-mes the viewer is using a WIMP [1] interface.


    Whoops, forgot the footnote.

    [1] Windows/Icons/Mouse/Pointer

    > Which is why *I* include that link. Of course I could leave it out all
    > together and have no indication at all on how to view the images.....


    > If I could I'd not have any text at all..... In fact I think I'll do
    > that the next time I update it. That way there will be no distracting
    > text to confuse the 'punters'.... ROTFLOL


    Okay, but then you should have ALT="text" within the image tags. (In
    case the browser has trouble loading the image, e.g. due to Internet
    congestion.)

    >> but
    >> it's still just generally inelegant. Whatever *follows* (or would
    >> follow) "click here" is usually a good candidate for link text.

    >
    > "click here" *is* link text......


    Yeah, but it's not *good* link text. Another, more reasonable
    example: Some browsers have an option to extract *just* the links
    from a page, and list them in a new window. Pages with lots of
    click here links are particularly unsuited
    for that type of thing.

    Mind you, this is just casual friendly sniping. I would follow and
    recommend stricter guidelines if we were talking about web sites that
    you get paid to design.


  2. Re: DDOS attack Microsoft

    > Ed Murphy scribbled:

    >> On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 22:45:32 +1200, Max Burke wrote:


    >>> 1) Web sites should look good when viewed at any resolution.
    >>> (Well, I wouldn't worry about less than 640 x 480, unless you're
    >>> specifically targeting a Palm audience.) "Best Viewed at
    >>> " annoys anyone who can't, or doesn't want to, devote
    >>> that much screen real estate to the browser window.


    >> So it's not an actual fault then? I design the pages around the
    >> 1024x768 screen resolution, therefore that's the best screen size to
    >> view them. It's not like I'm forcing anyone to view them at that
    >> resolution.... ;-)


    > Faulty design practice.


    No it isn't.

    > Proper design practice is "design to look
    > good at any size", with 640x480 as the /de facto/ lowest common
    > denominator in most cases.


    I do.
    All definitions of size are defined as a percentage of the screen
    resolution of the computer they're being displayed on, except for the
    size of the images themselves; They are defined explicitly as x pixels X
    y pixels. That's because I have decided what size I want the images to
    be displayed at.
    Things like tables, page size, etc are defined as a percentage or the
    screen resolution.....
    Resolution of 640x480? 800x600? 1024X768? Then they're displayed as X%
    of that screen resolution
    That GOOD design practice.......

    >>> 2) Link text shouldn't include "click here" (or similar), because it
    >>> ass-u-mes the viewer is using a WIMP [1] interface.


    > Whoops, forgot the footnote.
    > [1] Windows/Icons/Mouse/Pointer


    >> Which is why *I* include that link. Of course I could leave it out
    >> all together and have no indication at all on how to view the
    >> images.....


    >> If I could I'd not have any text at all..... In fact I think I'll do
    >> that the next time I update it. That way there will be no
    >> distracting text to confuse the 'punters'.... ROTFLOL


    > Okay, but then you should have ALT="text" within the image tags. (In
    > case the browser has trouble loading the image, e.g. due to Internet
    > congestion.)


    I do. (on the main page) hover over the image or the title banner to see
    that.....

    On they images pages themselves I deliberately dont, because I dont
    'title' my images, so it's not a fault. it's *by design*......
    I want people to see my images Ed, not inane titles in an ALT="text"
    tag.......

    >>> but
    >>> it's still just generally inelegant. Whatever *follows* (or would
    >>> follow) "click here" is usually a good candidate for link text.


    >> "click here" *is* link text......


    > Yeah, but it's not *good* link text.


    Yes it is. It tells people to click to view the images......

    > Another, more reasonable
    > example: Some browsers have an option to extract *just* the links
    > from a page, and list them in a new window. Pages with lots of
    > click here links are particularly unsuited
    > for that type of thing.


    > Mind you, this is just casual friendly sniping. I would follow and
    > recommend stricter guidelines if we were talking about web sites that
    > you get paid to design.


    I just my homepage Ed. It's just to show 'the world' my images., that's
    all.......

    --
    mlvburke@#%&*.net.nz
    Replace the obvious with paradise to email me.
    See Found Images at:
    http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/~mlvburke/


  3. Re: M$ attack on Common Sense

    Bob the Knobb wrote:
    > "User" wrote in message
    > news:...
    >
    >> I know most doctors around here use windows because they cannot
    >> work out unix.

    >
    >
    > The embeded systems used for medical use cannot freez up or crash
    > ever. I reboot my windows machine 7 times a day, 8 or nine if I'm
    > feeling Zen.


    I doubt Windows is that bad. I hated Windows so much I switched to Linux
    in early 1998 and never looked back except to run TurboTax and Quicken.

    But my Windows 95 crashed only about three times a week. It was idle
    most of the time, if that makes a difference. The programs crashed more
    often than that, many times a day. Other than Netscape 3.*, they were
    all provided at considerable expense by Microsoft, so there should have
    been no compatibility problems. Ha! And Visual C++ could not be
    installed at the same time as Office Professional because of conflicting
    .dll file requirements. Whenever I wanted to run one of them, I
    had to remove the other and install the one I needed. Pretty crappy.

    But I imagine the current releases of Window are less crash-prone than
    Windows 95, even with bandaids #1 and #2. So if yours crashes 7 times a
    day or more, I would expect hardware problems in addition to the crummy
    OS. If yours is an Intel *86 machine, I suggest you run memtest86 and
    see if the memory is OK to begin with.

    --
    .~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
    /V\ Registered Machine 73926.
    /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
    ^^-^^ 5:10pm up 26 days, 2:35, 2 users, load average: 3.89, 4.05, 3.99


  4. Re: DDOS attack Microsoft

    On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 07:59:02 +1200, Max Burke wrote:

    >> Proper design practice is "design to look
    >> good at any size", with 640x480 as the /de facto/ lowest common
    >> denominator in most cases.

    >
    > I do.
    > All definitions of size are defined as a percentage of the screen
    > resolution of the computer they're being displayed on, except for the
    > size of the images themselves; They are defined explicitly as x pixels X
    > y pixels. That's because I have decided what size I want the images to
    > be displayed at.
    > Things like tables, page size, etc are defined as a percentage or the
    > screen resolution.....
    > Resolution of 640x480? 800x600? 1024X768? Then they're displayed as X%
    > of that screen resolution
    > That GOOD design practice.......


    Then the "best viewed at 1024x768" notice should be irrelevant. So take
    it out, because lots of people look at that and immediately think "ooh,
    lousy site, don't bother, click to the next one".

    > On they images pages themselves I deliberately dont, because I dont
    > 'title' my images, so it's not a fault. it's *by design*......
    > I want people to see my images Ed, not inane titles in an ALT="text"
    > tag.......


    ALT="text" only shows up while the image is still in the process of
    being transferred. Some browsers also show it when you put the mouse
    pointer over the image; check out webshots.com for an example of how
    this is used to excellent effect. (I think there's a more recent
    standard that suggests TITLE="text" for that purpose. w3.org should
    have details.)

    >>> "click here" *is* link text......

    >
    >> Yeah, but it's not *good* link text.

    >
    > Yes it is. It tells people to click to view the images......


    Except that they may not *be* clicking. (Even if they're using an
    ordinary graphic browser, they may be using the keyboard.)

    "View Images" as link text would avoid the ugly 'click here' phrase. As
    an extra bonuses, it's shorter.


  5. Re: M$ attack on Common Sense

    On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 12:55:31 -0700, Bob the Knobb wrote:

    > "User" wrote in message news:...


    >> I know most doctors around here use windows because they cannot work out
    >> unix.

    >
    > The embeded systems used for medical use cannot freez up or crash
    > ever. I reboot my windows machine 7 times a day, 8 or nine if I'm
    > feeling Zen.


    To be fair, Linux may not be appropriate either in such cases. If an
    embedded system must guarantee zero faults, then there's a decent chance
    that it must also guarantee real-time processing. Linux is not designed
    for such a guarantee; there are other OSes (I think QnX is one of them)
    specifically for that purpose.

    > MSOS comes preinstalled in 96% of the machines the other 4% are
    > macintosh. The only machines that come preinstalled with linux are
    > high end servers and cluster super computers,


    Not the *only* machines. I'm writing this message on a counterexample.


  6. Re: DDOS attack Microsoft

    On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 22:45:32 +1200, Max Burke wrote:
    >
    >> What if
    >> they're using a text-only browser like Lynx?

    >
    >Then pray tell how would they SEE the images?


    The use of a text-based browser doesn't necessarily mean a lack of
    graphics ability. Plenty of people use lynx/w3m/links in an xterm on an
    X display for various reasons, and these are quite capable of displaying
    the graphics in a separate window with something like xv (at least w3m
    can). I think the latest versions of some of these can display the
    graphics inline.

    Frink

    --
    Doctor J. Frink : 'Rampant Ribald Ringtail'
    See his mind here : http://www.cmp.liv.ac.uk/frink/
    Annoy his mind here : pjf at cmp dot liv dot ack dot ook
    "No sir, I didn't like it!" - Mr Horse

  7. Re: DDOS attack Microsoft

    In article , emurphy42
    @socal.rr.com says...
    [snip]
    > Mind you, this is just casual friendly sniping. I would follow and
    > recommend stricter guidelines if we were talking about web sites that
    > you get paid to design.


    Hey guys, how about considering that sites, public or not, are designed
    with a purpose in mind, and a look/feel also. While some people still
    use 640x480, that number is irrelevant to what they designer was trying
    to build.

    We've built many Federal and local government sites that run best at
    800x600, and some that are designed for 1024x768 in order to make the
    information more presentable and user friendly.

    You DO NOT HAVE TO CODE TO THE LOWEST DENOMINATOR, you code to your
    target with "some" consideration for the rest.

    I can honestly tell you that almost all of our customers request 800x600
    and not 640x480. While compliance with the standards for disabled is
    mandated by Fed/Local government, other sites DO NOT HAVE TO COMPLY.
    Again, it's based on who your client and visitors are targeting.


    --
    --
    spamfree999@rrohio.com
    (Remove 999 to reply to me)

  8. Re: DDOS attack Microsoft

    ["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.misc.]
    On 2003-09-17, Leythos wrote:

    > Hey guys, how about considering that sites, public or not, are designed
    > with a purpose in mind, and a look/feel also. While some people still
    > use 640x480, that number is irrelevant to what they designer was trying
    > to build.


    [...]

    > You DO NOT HAVE TO CODE TO THE LOWEST DENOMINATOR, you code to your
    > target with "some" consideration for the rest.


    Over the years people seem to have forgotten that HTML was not intended to
    be a page layout language; if fact quite the contrary. It was intended to
    provide access to information while allowing the client to determine how
    best to display or otherwise use it.

    --

    -John (JohnThompson@new.rr.com)

  9. Re: DDOS attack Microsoft

    http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph/....microsoft.com

    ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Maxime Ducharme
    Administrateur reseau, Programmeur


    "Manoj Paul Joseph" wrote in message
    news:jIE6b.1$l24.163@news.oracle.com...
    > Hi,
    >
    > I am looking for some info regarding the Distributed Denial Of Service
    > (DDOS) attack on Microsoft.
    > It is said Microsoft switched to Akamai servers to ward off the attack.
    > Does anyone know how that is supposed to help?
    >
    > Regards,
    > Manoj
    >
    >




  10. Re: DDOS attack Microsoft

    Leythos wrote:
    > In article , emurphy42
    > @socal.rr.com says...
    > [snip]
    >
    >>Mind you, this is just casual friendly sniping. I would follow and
    >>recommend stricter guidelines if we were talking about web sites that
    >>you get paid to design.

    >
    >
    > Hey guys, how about considering that sites, public or not, are designed
    > with a purpose in mind, and a look/feel also. While some people still
    > use 640x480, that number is irrelevant to what they designer was trying
    > to build.
    >
    > We've built many Federal and local government sites that run best at
    > 800x600, and some that are designed for 1024x768 in order to make the
    > information more presentable and user friendly.
    >
    > You DO NOT HAVE TO CODE TO THE LOWEST DENOMINATOR, you code to your
    > target with "some" consideration for the rest.
    >
    > I can honestly tell you that almost all of our customers request 800x600
    > and not 640x480. While compliance with the standards for disabled is
    > mandated by Fed/Local government, other sites DO NOT HAVE TO COMPLY.
    > Again, it's based on who your client and visitors are targeting.
    >
    >


    http://members.optusnet.com.au/~night.owl/morons.html

    --
    Bob Marcan mailto:bob.marcan@hermes-plus.si
    Aster^H^H...HermesPlus^H^H^H...S&T
    Slandrova ul. 2 tel: +386 (1) 5895-000
    1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia http://www.hermes-plus.si


  11. Re: DDOS attack Microsoft

    In article , bob.marcan@aster.si
    says...
    > Leythos wrote:
    > > In article , emurphy42
    > > @socal.rr.com says...
    > > [snip]
    > >
    > >>Mind you, this is just casual friendly sniping. I would follow and
    > >>recommend stricter guidelines if we were talking about web sites that
    > >>you get paid to design.

    > >
    > >
    > > Hey guys, how about considering that sites, public or not, are designed
    > > with a purpose in mind, and a look/feel also. While some people still
    > > use 640x480, that number is irrelevant to what they designer was trying
    > > to build.
    > >
    > > We've built many Federal and local government sites that run best at
    > > 800x600, and some that are designed for 1024x768 in order to make the
    > > information more presentable and user friendly.
    > >
    > > You DO NOT HAVE TO CODE TO THE LOWEST DENOMINATOR, you code to your
    > > target with "some" consideration for the rest.
    > >
    > > I can honestly tell you that almost all of our customers request 800x600
    > > and not 640x480. While compliance with the standards for disabled is
    > > mandated by Fed/Local government, other sites DO NOT HAVE TO COMPLY.
    > > Again, it's based on who your client and visitors are targeting.
    > >
    > >

    >
    > http://members.optusnet.com.au/~night.owl/morons.html


    Your posting of their OPINION shows how much you DON'T know about
    converting client server apps to web applications. There is more to the
    design of a web interface than the idea that it's designed for the
    entire world. If you design your site for your target audience then you
    have built a site that meets the requirements and provides the most
    features for your audience - it does not have to work with all browsers,
    be compatible with the blind, have easy to view colors, etc... It HAS TO
    BE WHAT THE USERS REQUIRE and PROVIDE THE TARGET WHAT THEY WANT.

    You design the site for the audience it's intended for, which does not
    mean that one set of guidelines fit all development projects.

    No matter how many times you say that all sites have to comply with a
    universal compatibility guideline you will be wrong.

    In the early days web interfaces were best designed for use with all
    browsers, then came the ability (as the technology improved) to convert
    green screen, client server apps, vb/c/c++ apps to web interfaces, and
    all the guidelines for PUBLIC users didn't mean anything. Imagine if you
    were doing a call center application for Verizon, to replace their old
    CS application, and you told them that they had to make the interface
    compatible with Opera, Mozilla, IE3,4,5,6, and that it had to run at
    640x480 and only use about 32 colors! They would throw you out the door,
    it's about more than just public brochure sites, people are using web
    interfaces for entire business systems now.

    Mark

    --
    --
    spamfree999@rrohio.com
    (Remove 999 to reply to me)

  12. Re: DDOS attack Microsoft

    Leythos wrote:
    > In article , bob.marcan@aster.si
    > says...
    >
    >>Leythos wrote:
    >>
    >>>In article , emurphy42
    >>>@socal.rr.com says...
    >>>[snip]
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>Mind you, this is just casual friendly sniping. I would follow and
    >>>>recommend stricter guidelines if we were talking about web sites that
    >>>>you get paid to design.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>Hey guys, how about considering that sites, public or not, are designed
    >>>with a purpose in mind, and a look/feel also. While some people still
    >>>use 640x480, that number is irrelevant to what they designer was trying
    >>>to build.
    >>>
    >>>We've built many Federal and local government sites that run best at
    >>>800x600, and some that are designed for 1024x768 in order to make the
    >>>information more presentable and user friendly.
    >>>
    >>>You DO NOT HAVE TO CODE TO THE LOWEST DENOMINATOR, you code to your
    >>>target with "some" consideration for the rest.
    >>>
    >>>I can honestly tell you that almost all of our customers request 800x600
    >>>and not 640x480. While compliance with the standards for disabled is
    >>>mandated by Fed/Local government, other sites DO NOT HAVE TO COMPLY.
    >>>Again, it's based on who your client and visitors are targeting.
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >> http://members.optusnet.com.au/~night.owl/morons.html

    >
    >
    > Your posting of their OPINION shows how much you DON'T know about
    > converting client server apps to web applications. There is more to the
    > design of a web interface than the idea that it's designed for the
    > entire world. If you design your site for your target audience then you
    > have built a site that meets the requirements and provides the most
    > features for your audience - it does not have to work with all browsers,
    > be compatible with the blind, have easy to view colors, etc... It HAS TO
    > BE WHAT THE USERS REQUIRE and PROVIDE THE TARGET WHAT THEY WANT.
    >
    > You design the site for the audience it's intended for, which does not
    > mean that one set of guidelines fit all development projects.
    >
    > No matter how many times you say that all sites have to comply with a
    > universal compatibility guideline you will be wrong.
    >
    > In the early days web interfaces were best designed for use with all
    > browsers, then came the ability (as the technology improved) to convert
    > green screen, client server apps, vb/c/c++ apps to web interfaces, and
    > all the guidelines for PUBLIC users didn't mean anything. Imagine if you
    > were doing a call center application for Verizon, to replace their old
    > CS application, and you told them that they had to make the interface
    > compatible with Opera, Mozilla, IE3,4,5,6, and that it had to run at
    > 640x480 and only use about 32 colors! They would throw you out the door,
    > it's about more than just public brochure sites, people are using web
    > interfaces for entire business systems now.
    >
    > Mark
    >


    If it is specialized application for the closed audience, O.K.
    I just switched my bank. They used certificates and the only way to get
    it is using IE, then import to Mozilla. I said tnx and go to the other.
    Searching for the new door http://www.fbsblindate.it/ , flash only.
    Guess, will i buy something from this comany?

    Regards, Bob

    --
    Bob Marcan mailto:bob.marcan@hermes-plus.si
    Aster^H^H...HermesPlus^H^H^H...S&T
    Slandrova ul. 2 tel: +386 (1) 5895-000
    1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia http://www.hermes-plus.si


  13. Re: DDOS attack Microsoft

    "Mark Dodel" wrote in message news:...
    > On Sun, 7 Sep 2003 15:02:56 UTC, Leythos wrote:
    >
    > -> Linux is no more secure than Windows, it's just less of a target and has
    > -> less exposure to the people that want to take down MS.
    > ->
    >
    > That is simply not true. Windows is setup from the get go for little
    > security. Microsoft has builtin a number of backdoors so they can
    > access your system (they of course claim its not anything insidious),
    > and these are exploitable once discovered. Why are mail attachments
    > automatically opened and run. Why are file extensions not displayed
    > by default for the people who are too stupid to click on anything that
    > someone tells them to. The users are not the problem (unless you
    > consider their constant belief of Microsoft's marketing lies),
    > Microsoft is. Instead of putting out patches that are just bandaids,
    > they should fix the damn problems with their software.
    >
    > As to the security through obscurity claim, that is a great point.
    > People should have multiple platforms available so that when Windows
    > is down with the latest virus/worm/exploit they can still be running.
    > I have no problems here, as I wouldn't let a Windows machine near the
    > internet for any length of time.
    >
    > Mark


    I have none of these problems with Microsoft products, my suggestion
    is to use help files and follow instructions.

  14. Re: DDOS attack Microsoft

    El Mariachi wrote:

    < snip >

    > I have none of these problems with Microsoft products, my suggestion
    > is to use help files and follow instructions.


    Following instructions doesn't help those thouands of Windows users whose
    machines have been taken over by security hole exploits, without any action
    on their part whatsoever. So your suggestion is utter nonsense.

    --
    Paul Lutus
    http://www.arachnoid.com


  15. Re: DDOS attack Microsoft

    "Colin Wilson" wrote in message
    news:MPG.19c5332ebc241d3c989b12@news.individual.ne t...
    | > > Nice to note that it was linux based servers that saved M$ though ;-)
    | > Why Linux based servers?
    | > Anyone any idea?
    |
    | They`re more reliable than Microsoft based ones ;-)
    |
    | --
    | Please add "[newsgroup]" in the subject of any personal replies via email
    | or you are likely to be spam filtered :-}
    |

    Not so. It was simply because the company they contract out to uses Linux.
    Do you care whether UPS uses Ford or GM all the time when (or if say you
    were to) use their services? Same thing here.

    Bup



+ Reply to Thread
Page 10 of 10 FirstFirst ... 8 9 10