Stop Microsoft
All Things Microsoft => Microsoft Software => Topic started by: Darkheim on 20 May 2003, 13:05
-
I work for a major national company...and i access the net mostly from work...everything was great, till they decided to change the os on the net server from redhat to win2k. So, now, everything is going in/out through a new proxy/firewall...the problem is that now i can only use iexplorer to access the internet...any other browser or program won't work...even if i set the correct proxy adress and firewall. Any ideas?
-
quote:
Originally posted by Darkheim:
I work for a major national company...and i access the net mostly from work...everything was great, till they decided to change the os on the net server from redhat to win2k. So, now, everything is going in/out through a new proxy/firewall...the problem is that now i can only use iexplorer to access the internet...any other browser or program won't work...even if i set the correct proxy adress and firewall. Any ideas?
Don't slap me, but you could put Red Hat back on.
In opera
click file quick preferences
then at the bottom choose identify as MSIE6 (Microsoft Internet Explorer 6)
I think the same can be done for Mozilla.
-
Best ask someome at work.
Then you can point out the problems with IE, like shit security see
That's general MS problems, click the IE logo for specific IE stuff.
They'll probably say they use IE for security reasons, good time to tell them it's the wrong sort of security reason. hahahaha!
BTW... why did they dump RH for Win 2000? I'm serious here and would really like to know.
zooloo (http://www.lugod.org/microsoft/Linux User Goroup of Davis[/url)
-
sorry to tell you Linux guys this but you can't always win by being right. he's just an employee, he can't make the company change back to Redhat just because he asks they change it back and he won't convince them just by saying IE is extremely insecure. companies simply don't care about security if the program they are going to have to sacrifice support.
the company probably switched to Windows because Microsoft always provides excellent tech support for companies. although their guys suck ass for helping the average customer, their company tech guys are very effective because MS knows most of its money comes from big companies.
as an answer though, Opera is the way to go because it can identify itself as IE. i can't seem to find anything like that in Mozilla but that doesn't mean it's not there ;)
-
the preferences toolbar for mozilla will let you identify as IE. it will also let you disable java from the toolbar, or turn off images, pop-up windows. its pretty much essential to run mozilla (IMO).
Preferences Toolbar Mozilla (http://www.xulplanet.com/downloads/)
-
I'm in a similar predicament
Its been so damn long since I've used that f*cker (Mmm, Mozilla), I forgot what pop-up ads were and that I probably shouldn't go onto less than legitamate websites.
-
quote:
sorry to tell you Linux guys this but you can't always win by being right. he's just an employee, he can't make the company change back to Redhat just because he asks they change it back and he won't convince them just by saying IE is extremely insecure.
Well fine. If his dumb-ass employer wants him to use IE, then, by God, he should use IE. ;) And so should every other employee. That way, the company's systems will be so lousey with WinVirii, ad-ware, spyware and all that other lovely garbage that IE attracts like a magnet, that they'll be begging to reinstall Red Hat in no time. :D
_________________________________________
Live Free or Die: Linux
(http://www.otakupc.com/etsig/dolphin.gif)
"There: now you'll never have to look at those dirty Windows anymore"
--Daffy Duck
-
yeah basically :D
one thing i've always wondered about companies is why they don't put Norton Antivirus on all of the computers. Norton has a thing that scans all incoming and outgoing email for scripts/viruses/trojans. Norton has alerted me several times of a virus attachment. although i have attachments disabled in Outlook (to check hotmail), Norton still alerted me that the virus was there.
you probably can't even count the number of times one of your dumb ass co-workers gets a virus and says something stupid like "well how the hell was i supposed to know it was a virus, it said i love you on it and the attached file was named i_love_you.exe"
-
quote:
BTW... why did they dump RH for Win 2000? I'm serious here and would really like to know.
Yes, they dumped redhat for win2k...weird, huh? They said win2k servers are more secure, reliable and 'user friendly'..rofl
And yes, I think one of the reasons is that Microsoft provides excellent tech support for big companies...if something's wrong, our dumb sysadmin is just calling the tech support...
-
why dont you apply for system tech and reinstall linux and laugh in M$s face
-
quote:
Originally posted by Darkheim:
They said win2k servers are more secure, reliable and 'user friendly'..rofl
That's not a reason, that's a spurious claim with no basis in fact. If they could say how and why it was more secure than Linux, that would be a reason. But there are two reasons why this won't happen. Because if they did come out with reasons, chances are Linux developers would fix the problems quickly, making that expensive win2k purchase look really embarrasing, and also they can't openly say any reasons why win2k is more secure, because no such reasons exist. They should go with OpenBSD if they want security.
quote:
And yes, I think one of the reasons is that Microsoft provides excellent tech support for big companies...if something's wrong, our dumb sysadmin is just calling the tech support...
That's not a reason either. I think you should come in early one morning and leave a severed horse's head on your system administrator's desk with a little post it note saying simply "Excuses, Excuses", do it daily and after a few days he will either give in or resign. I promise.
-
quote:
Originally posted by ShawnD1:
yeah basically :D
one thing i've always wondered about companies is why they don't put Norton Antivirus on all of the computers. Norton has a thing that scans all incoming and outgoing email for scripts/viruses/trojans. Norton has alerted me several times of a virus attachment. although i have attachments disabled in Outlook (to check hotmail), Norton still alerted me that the virus was there.
you probably can't even count the number of times one of your dumb ass co-workers gets a virus and says something stupid like "well how the hell was i supposed to know it was a virus, it said i love you on it and the attached file was named i_love_you.exe"
The thing about Norton is that you are only as safe as your last update. It's pitiful. It's the e-mail client (Lookout Express or Lookout 2002) is the problem. In my opinion, we shouldn't need a license for Norton (or any other redundant virus checker)the e-mail client and the OS should not allow scripts to run amock on the machine. Keeping the PCs clean and stable is a full time job. A bogus job at that.
-
quote:
Originally posted by ShawnD1:
the company probably switched to Windows because Microsoft always provides excellent tech support for companies. although their guys suck ass for helping the average customer, their company tech guys are very effective because MS knows most of its money comes from big companies.
Don't make me laugh !!! Oh my sides !!
:rolleyes:
-
quote:
Yes, they dumped redhat for win2k...weird, huh? They said win2k servers are more secure, reliable and 'user friendly'..rofl
And yes, I think one of the reasons is that Microsoft provides excellent tech support for big companies...if something's wrong, our dumb sysadmin is just calling the tech support...
Nobody could be that fucking st00pid. I guarantee you that the real reason they ditched Red for Win 2K servers is because they fell for MS's bogus claim that Win 2K is sooooooooooo easy to administer that you don't need "those geeks" (read: IT specialists who actually know what they're doing.) to administer the system. Why, just look at that purdy GUI, the point 'n' click simplicity, yada, yada, yada: do your own admin. :rolleyes:
And that's how Code Red, Klez, Nimda, Fizzer, and those other script kiddie worms spread half way around the world in a matter of hours, from one Win server to another. All "administered" by untrained dumb-asses who were "assured" by Microsoft itself that it is so easy it makes real sys-admins irrelevant. (http://tongue.gif) So go ahead, pink-slip all those nerds who actually know a thing or two about computers. Save a bundle!
Believe me, they're gonna get precisely what they have coming. When that happens, tell them to get a MSCE (Minesweeper Consultant, Solitaire Expert) to fix it for them. :D :D :D
_____________________________________
Live Free or Die: Linux
(http://www.otakupc.com/etsig/dolphin.gif)
"There: now you'll never have to look at those dirty Windows anymore"
--Daffy Duck
[ May 21, 2003: Message edited by: jtpenrod ]
-
Too bad microsoft don't release their ultimate secure version of IIS which they use for their own servers (the one with all the code from linux and apache in it).
-
because MS is not retarded. they know that if they let people know how the system worked, they would get hacked by every MS hating person out there.
-
quote:
Originally posted by ShawnD1:
because MS is not retarded. they know that if they let people know how the system worked, they would get hacked by every MS hating person out there.
so, operating systems that release their entire source code, like FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, GNU and Darwin all get "hacked" all the time do they? (they do, but you don't mean "hacked", you mean "cracked"). Only an operating system that is inherently shit could possibly be threatened by having its source code made public knowledge. Any decent system would be strengthened by opening its source code.
Many people love Microsoft blindly, and those people would probably love to "hack" Linux systems, why don't they? if open source systems are so insecure? If open source software was inherently insecure it would not have become so popular in mission critical situations, and Microsoft would have been paying people to show up these security holes all this time, you can be sure of that.
[ May 23, 2003: Message edited by: The Realist ]
-
Your analogy is slightly flawed. most people who love Microsoft are actually not computer savvy so they couldn't hack unix computers if they wanted to. The MS hating community on the other hand is usualy a bit more skilled with a computer. The average MS hating person is more dangerous than the average unix hating person. Releasing a unix source doesn't make a big problem because few anti-unix people are smart enough to be able to hack any computer at all, be it unix or Windows. MS using the same IIS as most companies would be a complete disaster because any MS hating person would be able to examine and study how IIS worked and how it is flawed then launch attacks on MS.
Knowledge is power, MS doesn't want its enemies to have the power.
-
Ok I spend all day everyday running around companies fixing MS problems, and I can tell you that 99% of companies will ALWAYS stick with MS because the jacka$$ MD's believe the crappy TV advertising and no techie will ever convince them otherwise
-
Reminds of how this year my school "upgraded" Macintosh to Dells equiped with windows 2000 proffesional. It makes me worried.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Mauy:
Ok I spend all day everyday running around companies fixing MS problems, and I can tell you that 99% of companies will ALWAYS stick with MS because the jacka$$ MD's believe the crappy TV advertising and no techie will ever convince them otherwise
Yep, this is very true. Seems the the people with the least sense get to make all the decisions.