July 10, 2008 | Comments: (0)
Microsoft to Zone Alarm: Bite me
So I've been hearing from a few Cringesters that an automatic Windows Update earlier this week broke Zone Alarm on their clients' systems. To quote reader J. M.:
The July 8 Windows Update (KB951748) to fix a DNS hijack issue breaks Zone Alarm (most versions) so that the affected (or infected) computer cannot access the Internet. Zone Labs says they’re working on it. In the meantime the only solution is to either manually program in your DNS server entries into Zone Alarm, or to uninstall the Microsoft hotfix.....This has made a real fun day for those of us doing remote support for irregular customers who have updates set to automatic.
The good news: This is one problem that doesn't affect Vista users. Check Point Software did post some fixes for the problem, though I haven't tested them out. (I quit using ZoneAlarm a while back; like a lot of security software it started out simple and sleek, and then gradually got more and more bloated and sluggish.) Your other options: uninstall the hotfix, or set your firewall security to 'medium.' Nice.
It's always fun when a 'security fix' breaks your computer's security software, though. What, you mean there's other software in the world not written by Microsoft?
Gates may be gone, but his legacy lives on.
Got hot tips or more Microsoft workarounds? Post them below or email me here: cringe (at) infoworld (dot) com. Swingin' swag awaits top tipsters.
Think you've got the right stuff to pass our tech quizzes? They're not as easy as they look:
• The InfoWorld News Quiz
• Test Your Geek IQ
• Test Your Network Security IQ
Posted by Robert X. Cringely on July 10, 2008 05:30 PM
June 04, 2008 | Comments: (0)
Do not attempt to adjust your Internet
It's been a wild week here in Cringeville. My blog posts on YouTube v. Viacom and the FCC's proposal for a pørn-free wireless Internet have inspired raging debates about copyrights and corporate rights, free speech and free sex. Here are some of the highlights.
First, longtime Cringe fan L. B. disputes my notion that most "pretty much all men" have surfed adult sites. He adds
And despite what you say about the First Amendment, our Constitution protects speech (which generally enlightens humans), not pørnography (which debases them). We could argue all day long about what constitutes pørnography (and even "pørnographic speech)", but the Supreme Court, even in its present liberal iteration, has generally ruled against pørnography, so you won't find much comfort there either.
(OK, show of hands: how many folks agree the Supremes are in a "present liberal iteration"? Maybe he's confusing them with the Motown group.)
It's true that when they created the First Amendment, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin et al probably did not have Girls Gone Wild in mind (well, maybe Franklin did). What they had in mind was protecting unpopular speech: the right to say things even a majority of the people (or one leader with a vindictive streak) did not much like. The problem is that old slippery slope, or what I like to call the Lays Potato Chip syndrome -- you can't censor just one. Once you start shutting down Web sites, it's hard to stop. It's no secret governments that impose the strictest limits on adult content also typically do the most to squelch political dissent.
A fair number of Cringesters noted that FCC oversight works fine for network TV, so why not the Net? All I can say is.... have you watched much network TV? Do you really want the Internet to look and act like that?
Meanwhile, over in the non-adult section of Web video, we've got a heated discussion over what studios and conglomerates should and shouldn't have the right to do with the content they're desperate to monetize in every possible way. Poster Redgum summarizes the conflict eloquently:
Copyrights like private ownership rights should be protected by law. This is where it gets sticky though -- do you completely shut down what is otherwise a fertile ground for creativity in the name of protecting existing copyrights, or do you find a better way to enforce existing laws? Personally, I think that if we continue to ban, prohibit, and shut down such avenues of access, we lose far more than what we perceive we are losing.
The common thread between these two topics is control. We're all used to a freewheeling, unregulated, Hell-bent-for-whatever Internet. Now that the Net is growing up, we're caught in the middle of a power struggle between corporate titans, government bureaucrats, and Just Plain Folks over who gets to call the shots in the 21st century economy. You can probably guess who I'm rooting for in this fight.
Finally, a word about the so-called phonecablopoly, from someone on the inside. Frequent Cringe correspondent B. D., who works for a wireless carrier/ISP that shall go unnamed (but rhymes with "horizon") says I'm being too hard on Ma Bell's kids. He's actually drowning in a sea of broadband choices:
At my house I can count (wired) TXU Electric, AT&T, and Charter Cable... plus (wireless) AT&T, T-Mobile, Verizon, Sprint, and several other smaller wireless carriers whose names escape me. Then there’s over-the-air digital TV broadcast plus Dish Network and DirectTV, plus another wireless Digital TV carrier whose name also escapes me... The day the electric company brings their Internet service online through the electrical power cable, we’ll have yet another choice though I for one have no intention of plugging up a modem directly to 120 VAC to get Internet (!). How many other choices DO we need in one place?!
(B. D. wants to make it clear he's speaking entirely for himself and not for his company, lest he be hauled off to the corporate dungeon and whipped with RJ11 cables.)
We control the horizontal, we control the vertical. And by "we," I'm not talking about you or me, Kemosabe.
Have we reached the Outer Limits? Would you prefer a regulated Internet, free from its sin-sodden side? Post your thoughts below, email me at cringe (at) infoworld (dot) com, or take the BuzzDash Quiz here.
Posted by Robert X. Cringely on June 4, 2008 05:25 AM
November 26, 2007 | Comments: (0)
It's been a while since I combed through the mailbox and shared a little of what Cringesters have been telling me outside the confines of this blog. Since I'm still a little sleepy from all that turkey (and possibly one or two liquid refreshments), this feels like as good a time as any.
First, Cringesters have given a big thumbs up to the notion that Google's possible bid for a chunk of the wireless spectrum will give the telecom fatcats a swift kick in their assets. R. J. writes:
I'm ready to get on the bandwagon as soon as [Google] get the infrastructure in place, and hardware available...Consolidation is forcing me to convert to a CDMA carrier, versus my preferred GSM way of life. I'm past ready!
Or, as Cringe fan O. D. succinctly writes, "Hell yes I would sign up."
One thing most Cringesters would not sign on for is the special "we'll read your email for you so you don't have to" service the NSA offers to certain ISP customers. But reader B. B. took exception to my ribbing of Deputy National Security Director Donald "Don't call me Kemosabe" Kerr:
I think you are pretending not to be as smart as you are. Mr. Kerr's point, regardless of whether it actually justifies the data compilation (or spying, if you prefer), is that "people" are outraged about someone spying on them to obtain data, but are willing to give just about any data to just about anybody in support of their own self interests.... A supportable implication is that the the data itself, or who actually "gets" it, does not really matter and is not actually relevant to the issue. The only relevant issue is the "spying to get it" versus [the] "giving it freely" issue.
In general, I find pretending to be stupid is an excellent way to mask actually being stupid. In this case, however, I would add that just because I gave my credit card number to Amazon doesn't mean they can sell it to someone else. Same goes for my ISP and my email. It's not theirs; it's mine. But enough on that one.
Finally, re my recent Gobbler Awards, J. G. writes with a simple question: "What, no turkey [award] for Vista?"
Good point. But I'm thinking that when it comes to Microsoft OSes, another bird might be more appropriate: like goose, as in cooked.
Got hot gossip or strong opinions? Share them below or email me here. Custom Cringe swag could be yours.
Think you've got the right stuff to pass our tech quizzes? They're not as easy as they look:
• The InfoWorld News Quiz
• Test Your Geek IQ
• Test Your Network Security IQ
Posted by Robert X. Cringely on November 26, 2007 10:21 AM
TOP STORIES
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES
- Migrating to Vista
- CX4: Leading-Edge Midrange Storage for Virtualized Environments
- Turning Information Into A Competitive Advantage
- Your Guide to Troubleshooting Application Problems
- AT&T Article: Reinventing the Telephone with VoIP
- Coordinating Marketing and Sales Across the Entire Revenue Cycle
