Shenan Stanley wrote:
> <snipped>
> Conversation in entirety:
>
http://groups.google.com/group/micr...8/b3486be8412ee2af?lnk=st&q=#b3486be8412ee2af
>
>
>
> Comments in-line...
>
> How would MS have known (as you state - before pushing the patch) that
> somebody elses firewall application (created and supported by another
> company) would have problems with this patch...? What are the limits
> in what third-party things a company must test to ensure that fixing
> their own product won't cause issues with someone elses product?
I said could have or should have known... and if they didn't test far enough
to check on a product that is widely used by their customers like ZA, shame
on them. At best, its negligent laziness.
>
--%<----
> Then again - I did see that part of your discussion and every time I
> went to the web page link during that time - the thing you were being
> told was there - was there. Then you would answer that it was not -
> but I could still see it. It is possible that something was awry on
> your computer(s) - or it was cached, proxy, etc and not refreshed.
> *shrug*
And how do you account for it being in my cache, if it never existed? Have
you ever seen a bug in Firfox that one single time only, clips a paragraph
from a web page, and never does it again? ... Neither have I. At some point
when they were diddling with that ZA update, clearly, someone let a version
of the page, called a workaround, on line that did not include the update.
After others insisted it was there, I did a hard refresh, then it turned up.
So it was as I said it was there, in the form I described, at one time, at
least for long enough for me to download it and get it into my browser
cache.... case closed.
---%<----
> For an educated person - that is always the wisest choice. Control
> your data/stuff completely - only you know the nuances of it and what
> is/is not important to you. Why anyone would do anything else is
> beyond me. ;-)
I tried to make the point that I was commenting as an everyday user. Realize
that many everyday users trust MS implicitly, and those home users are the
vast majority of MS OS customers, and not to consider their everyday usage
likelihoods was a failure by MS. Realize that the average person either
trusts MS to do the right thing, or does not trust themselves to know more
than MS, and therefore would never consider trying to control the updates
themselves. Personally, I just did it as convenience, since an MS update has
never caused me a problem in all these years. But nevermore.
>> And due to this and other past avoidable ZA problems, plus
>> information that indicates their firewall is only marginally
>> effective at best, I will move on to a better firewall.
>
> The built-in Windows XP firewall (especially if you are also behind a
> NAT router of some sort for any high-speed Internet you might have
> and keep you AV/AS updated) is *more* than sufficient.
Its all up to date. I'm using 2000P on one computer so there's no XP
firewall. That's the computer that was bitten. But I am not going to change
the OS on a perfectly functional computer just for a firewall, that's like
jumping out of a perfectly good airplane. So I am probably going to Comodo
2.4 unless someone can suggest something better.
>
> For _most_ home-users - anything more than what is built into Windows
> XP and later (consumer OSes from Microsoft) is usually wasted space
> and time in terms of 'firewall protection' - IMHO. Why add the
> complication(s) and possible problem(s) (as demonstrated so well in
> this case) if there is no logical reason to and especially if the
> home user probably would not be able to fix it themselves in case of
> a problem.
I would agree with you had not an older computer running the XP firewall
plus AV and other malware protection still been infected with unacceptable
trash, to the point that it ended up in the recycle bin, after being
cannibalized for parts.
For the record, my W2000P computer running ZA (now temporarily), SpyBot, and
AVG antivirus, and Firefox browser, has not been infected with anything
since I put it on line over a year ago. The only problem it's had is the MS
update for July.
I'm again speaking as a consumer, something I think deserves more attention
from MS when they make changes that are over the head of the average user.
It wasn't over my head, but then it wasn't just no problem either. From a PR
point of view, MS and ZA both *should* and *could* have known about this in
advance, and both *could* have put out a notice to that effect.
And note again from the average consumer point of view that most would not
know what to do once the browser was shut down, since they couldn't get to
the ZA update page, even if the ZA software's *check for update* feature had
actually found the update instead of saying there was none available.
Please give the average person a break. This whole MS/ZA/update hassle was
totally unnecessary and avoidable with just a little extra conscientious
effort.
MartyB in KC