Re: XP SP2

From: 14tonks (mail.2.14tonks_at_recursor.net)
Date: 09/30/04 

Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 23:40:13 -0400

"Eliyahu Rooff" <lrooff@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2s0o14F1f91hgU1@uni-berlin.de...
>
> "RaeMorrill" <raemorrill@aol.com.com> wrote in message
> news:20040929120048.12548.00001083@mb-m21.aol.com...
>> Good grief, why do
> > they presume
> > everyone needs to be treated like a baby and told what they can or
> > can't see?
> >
> While I'm sure there's an "undo" for this feature/setting, keep in
> mind that one of the frequent security criticisms leveled at MS has
> been that the default settings have left too many things insecure
> and wide open. This time, they're setting the defaults for high
> security settings and leaving it to the user to unlock and open
> doors if he/she sees fit.
>

Actually, there is something to be said for this method. Leaving everything
open meant that the users who couldn't be bothered to actually learn
anything about a computer spread viruses and clogged bandwidth with zombie
computers running all over the net.

Now, everything is locked down. If you know nothing, you can't get anywhere
or download any messages to acquire a virus to mess up the internet with.
If you actually want to run around the net, you need to actually learn the
necessary to do it. I like it.

They just need mandated antivirus and antitrojan/spyware software with
updates in addition to the mandated firewall, and they probably need to lock
the firewall down even further. Then those who don't know how to turn a key
in the ignition or signal a turn won't be out on the digital highway
menacing the rest of us. 

-- 
Sheila
To reply to me, add the prefix real. to my address.