Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > NZ Computing > Firefox and IIS

Reply
Thread Tools

Firefox and IIS

 
 
SchoolTech
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-25-2006
On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 21:02:17 +1300, Fred Dagg <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 20:43:57 +1300, SchoolTech
><(E-Mail Removed)> exclaimed:
>
>>>>>> It is broken. The browser sends the wrong header back to the server, which
>>>>>> can't authenticate the request.
>>>>>
>>>>>It... is... not... "broken". Try configuring it correctly.
>>>>
>>>>Really...............................
>>>
>>><stupidity snipped>
>>>
>>>About 5 minutes.
>>>
>>>If you can't figure out how, you shouldn't be a network techie, even
>>>for schools...

>>
>>You dont get it do you.
>>We don't have to configure IE at all.

>
>Ay? It should be configured in a school environment. It should be
>locked right down.


No special IE config is needed to access a wwebsite using IWA. It
works out of the box
We already have lockdown where needed through system/group policy.

>
>>And MS supports its configuration in group policy.
>>That means IE is better

>
>Does it now? That's a pretty bold ascertion.


Where is the same interface in FF that can be deployed automatically
to all the machine sin a network

>
>>I am the only one who uses FF
>>But now IE7 is almost as good we will use that instread.

>
>You really are a fool if you are using BETA software in a production
>environment. Unfortunately it is your client's that will have to pay
>the price, but hopefully some of them will realise just how stupid a
>move that is.


Your the fool
I'm using it only on my machine
We will deploy it system wide once it becomes the production release
on Windows Update

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
A Nice Cup of Tea
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-25-2006
On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 13:21:48 +1300, SchoolTech wrote:

> MS has put a huge effort into security in recent times and it can be seem
> in the type of products now being offered by them e.g. a server core with
> no Gui.


What rot.

The only reason why M$ has done that is an attempt to counter the argument
that M$ Windows is bloated - which it is - and cannot sustain the same
load as a *nix box on the same hardware, partly because of the GUI that is
Micro$oft Windows.

Take away that GUI and you don't have "Windows". Might as well call it
DosNT.

Why doesn't Micro$oft simply ship the one version of it's operating system
and simply make all those fancy features capable of being turned off or
on by the admin or the users?

Wouldn't that be giving the public a choice??


Have A Nice Cup of Tea

--
Every major worm other than the original Morris Worm from 1988 has leveraged
a hole in Microsoft products.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
A Nice Cup of Tea
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-25-2006
On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 13:23:34 +1300, SchoolTech wrote:

> Your the fool
> I'm using it only on my machine
> We will deploy it system wide once it becomes the production release on
> Windows Update


You're the fool for using Micro$oft software, and for trusting what
Micro$oft does!


A Nice Cup of Tea

--
A: because it messes up threading
Q: why should I not reply by top-posting?
A: No.
Q: Should I include quotations after my reply?

 
Reply With Quote
 
A Nice Cup of Tea
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-25-2006
On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 13:23:34 +1300, SchoolTech wrote:

>>>And MS supports its configuration in group policy. That means IE is
>>>better

>>
>>Does it now? That's a pretty bold ascertion.

>
> Where is the same interface in FF that can be deployed automatically to
> all the machine sin a network


It's a simple one line edit of a text file. It can be done using a simple
shell script. can't you do that?


A Nice Cup of Tea

--
Adam L. Penenberg: "The next time Bill G. promises to make software that is
so fundamentally secure that customers never have to worry about it, ask him
what decade he plans to release it."

 
Reply With Quote
 
Fred Dagg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-25-2006
On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 13:23:34 +1300, SchoolTech
<(E-Mail Removed)> exclaimed:

>>
>>Ay? It should be configured in a school environment. It should be
>>locked right down.

>
>No special IE config is needed to access a wwebsite using IWA. It
>works out of the box


IE allows users to install spyware via "install on demand" without
"special config", too, does that make it better also?

>We already have lockdown where needed through system/group policy.


So you HAVE configured IE in your environment. You're more flip-flop
than John Kerry...

>>>And MS supports its configuration in group policy.
>>>That means IE is better

>>
>>Does it now? That's a pretty bold ascertion.

>
>Where is the same interface in FF that can be deployed automatically
>to all the machine sin a network


Where is the same interface in IE that can be deployed automatically
to all the machine sin a network

>>>I am the only one who uses FF
>>>But now IE7 is almost as good we will use that instread.

>>
>>You really are a fool if you are using BETA software in a production
>>environment. Unfortunately it is your client's that will have to pay
>>the price, but hopefully some of them will realise just how stupid a
>>move that is.

>
>Your the fool


You are, times infinity! Nah nah nah nah, nah.

>I'm using it only on my machine
>We will deploy it system wide once it becomes the production release
>on Windows Update


Nice backtrack. So, when you say "now that IE7 is almost as good *we*
will use that", you were just talking of all the collective "we" that
makes up you?
 
Reply With Quote
 
SchoolTech
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-27-2006
A Nice Cup of Tea wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 13:21:48 +1300, SchoolTech wrote:
>
>> MS has put a huge effort into security in recent times and it can be seem
>> in the type of products now being offered by them e.g. a server core with
>> no Gui.

>
> What rot.
>
> The only reason why M$ has done that is an attempt to counter the argument
> that M$ Windows is bloated - which it is - and cannot sustain the same
> load as a *nix box on the same hardware, partly because of the GUI that is
> Micro$oft Windows.


False.

It removes a GUI as an attack surface, as the focus is now on reducing
attack surfaces. For example, Windows Server now comes with minimum
number of services enabled.

> Take away that GUI and you don't have "Windows". Might as well call it
> DosNT.


It's still Windows. If I open a command shell on a Windows box, I am
running Windows at the command line. If I run a script on a Windows box
using cscript, it runs in a command window. It's still running Windows.

I can boot an XP box to a command shell, which amounts to the same thing.

> Why doesn't Micro$oft simply ship the one version of it's operating system
> and simply make all those fancy features capable of being turned off or
> on by the admin or the users?


They ship two different versions of XP and about four different versions
of Server. That is a fact.

>
> Wouldn't that be giving the public a choice??
>


OK then why doesn't the Linux community only ship one distro of Linux?
 
Reply With Quote
 
SchoolTech
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-27-2006
A Nice Cup of Tea wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 13:23:34 +1300, SchoolTech wrote:
>
>> Your the fool
>> I'm using it only on my machine
>> We will deploy it system wide once it becomes the production release on
>> Windows Update

>
> You're the fool for using Micro$oft software, and for trusting what
> Micro$oft does!


They make good software.
You don't use it so what would you know.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Have A Nice Cup of Tea
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-28-2006
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 10:31:26 +1300, SchoolTech wrote:

> For example, Windows Server now comes with minimum number
> of services enabled.


Wow man! It should come with NO "services" enabled. The admin should
choose what daemons she wants enabled, and then enable them - rather than
disabling and uninstalling unwanted stuff.


Have A Nice Cup of Tea

--
Jono Bacon: "I deal with companies every day that are moving over to Linux, and
it does all the things that they want."

 
Reply With Quote
 
Have A Nice Cup of Tea
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-28-2006
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 10:31:26 +1300, SchoolTech wrote:

> They ship two different versions of XP and about four different versions
> of Server. That is a fact.


It is about to release 6 different versions of it's desktop version of
"Vista" - and that's not counting the versions it will need to release in
order to sell into Korea and Europe.

More marketing hype from Micro$oft, IMHO.


Have A Nice Cup of Tea

--
Jono Bacon: "I deal with companies every day that are moving over to Linux, and
it does all the things that they want."

 
Reply With Quote
 
Have A Nice Cup of Tea
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-28-2006
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 10:31:26 +1300, SchoolTech wrote:

>> Wouldn't that be giving the public a choice??
>>
>>

> OK then why doesn't the Linux community only ship one distro of Linux?


Because people want to make their own changes.

There is only one Linux. All the various distros take a copy of Linux and
modify it to suit their own purpose. Any modifications they make must be
published if they wish to distribute their modified version. Those
modifications are then available for everybody - and the good mods that
are useful for everybody will get included into future releases of Linux.


Have A Nice Cup of Tea

--
Jono Bacon: "I deal with companies every day that are moving over to Linux, and
it does all the things that they want."

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
developing on IIS V5.1 hosted on WinXP pro and deploying on IIS 6.0 win2k3 qustion Smith ASP .Net 2 04-27-2009 09:53 AM
about IIS 6 and IIS 7 Tony Johansson ASP .Net 2 11-13-2008 02:51 AM
Difference between IIS 5.0 Isolation Mode and IIS 6.0 WP Mode cedric ASP .Net Web Services 0 12-29-2005 09:56 AM
IIS 6.0 win2003, IIS users moe_rodrigue MCSE 1 04-01-2004 07:37 AM
IIS/Tomcat 4 Admin and Manager - Can't Connect from IIS Emile Coetzee Java 0 01-12-2004 11:01 AM



Advertisments