Re: [ba-ohs-talk] Microsoft Assumption and McAfee 6.0
Thanks, Rod. (01)
I am glad you appreciate that I wouldn't have brought the McAffee issue up if it were
just a personal frustration. The issue is larger than that. Strictly on a personal note,
the only reason I bought the boxed set is that it came with coupons that nullified the
cost of this one piece of software. I wouldn't have upgraded from an earlier version
that is still serviceable! (02)
And, of course, as you said, I can fire up Explorer from Win98 to install the McAffee
software. But there was an interesting detail in the "Getting started" booklet that came
with the CD. The email protection itself, the way I read it, especially applies to
Microsoft products. Which, of course, makes one wonder about the Netscape mail client.
(Geez, why then not make virus-catching an integral part of the Windows OS itself? Then
one would not have to go to two separate sites for updating with service packs.) (03)
Moreover, the booklet can only be properly understood by someone able to take the time
to gather a fair amount of knowledge about servers and clients and protocols, the lesson
from which is, "just stick with father Microsoft and he will take good care of you." It
is this approach to writing a software guide that further gells the Microsoft
Assumption. And that is not healthy. (04)
Ultimately, we can only function if we are able to put a fair measure of trust in our
bakers and butchers, in our medical doctors and police officers, in our teachers and
journalists, and in our engineers and entrepreneurs. MS may have made significant
contributions to society, but it still seems to me that the corporation has performed in
a way that erodes trust as evidenced by a zillion stories among friends and in the
media. This is to the detriment of all. Or am I just paranoiac? (05)
Henry (06)
Rod Welch wrote: (07)
> Henry,
>
> Recently McAfee was purchased and downloaded. It installed without
> incident, as related in the record on 020331....
>
> http://www.welchco.com/sd/08/00101/02/02/03/31/193859.HTM
>
> IE is on the computer where McAfee was installed, so in some respects
> this record does not relate to your situation, except that. once
> installed, McAfee provides virus protection for Netscape in receiving
> email and other downloads.
>
> Ordinarily, if you have Windows installed, there is an opportunity to
> install IE that is provided at no additional cost, and this can be
> helpful, provided you do not have a disk space issue, in order to
> accommodate market conditions that have a lot of inertia toward
> Microsoft, as you point out. Your experience and a letter from Eric
> Armstrong a few months ago indicate Netscape seems to have a better
> email environment, although many may dispute this.
>
> The challenge is how to work productively and still maintain
> compatibility with the general market centered on Microsoft. Again,
> since disk space is relatively inexpensive, and since IE comes at no
> charge with the operating system, it is possible for another few years
> to be both productive and be compatible with the larger market. How
> long this will remain so seems like a big issue you might want to take
> up in your journal.
>
> For example, some people are continuing to work on using technology
> productively under the general umbrella of Knowledge Management.
> Assume a workable design were identified over the next year or so,
> which so far is not likely, based on efforts by Microsoft, IBM,
> Oracle, LANL, SRI, DARPA, Doug, Eric, Jack, Eugene, Jeff, Lee, et al.
> How many years will it take to implement that design based on the
> history where KM has been deployed. In other words, simply coming
> with a design is only a beginning that launches people on many years
> of trial and error before something is available that is effective for
> wide scale use. On the other hand, if an existing design were
> upgraded how many years would this save in reaching a solution to
> avoid future 911 disasters, "Enrons," and for solving world problems?
> Indeed, an interesting question to pose in a journal article is how
> long people are willing to wait; how much money are people willing to
> lose, before advancing from IT to a culture of knowledge, based on
> Jack's report on 010908 and your analysis on 000926....
>
> http://www.welchco.com/sd/08/00101/02/00/09/26/155401.HTM#004M
>
> Your quandary has interesting and perhaps momentous ramifications for
> those investing time in KM and for those suffering under the growing
> weight of IT, as you point out today.
>
> Rod
>
> ******************
>
> Henry K van Eyken wrote:
> >
> > Just to put everyone at ease, what follows is not an anti-Microsoft rant. It is
> > not Microsoft's fault that it appears to go without saying that buyers of computer
> > products and readers of articles about computers are simply assumed to be
> > usingWindows and Internet Explorer. Or, for all I know, it is.
> >
> > I just unpacked a box with McAffee VirusScan version 6.0 and put the CD in my
> > drive. Soon a screen appeared telling me that "The program requires Internet
> > Explorer 4.01 with Service Pack 2 or above." Well, it so happens that I am not
> > using Explorer, but Netscape.
> >
> > Should that matter very much? Well, apparently it does because when I clicked the
> > OK button (there was nothing else to click on!) I was told that "McAffee VirusScan
> > was interrupted before the install could be completed," etc. No protection for the
> > wicked.
> >
> > Questions:
> >
> > Does one not have to worry about viruses if one does not use Windows Explorer?
> > Why then would anybody want to use Explorer?
> >
> > Does McAffee only cater to those who use Windows Explorer? Why then not print that
> > on the box. Nowhere on the box does the word "Explorer" appear.
> >
> > I bought VirusScan v. 6.0 as an upgrade for my VirusScan 5 that I had obtained
> > from McAffee's website. Have I been blindly using an antivirus program that was
> > not suited for use with Netscape to begin with? Or have I been using a program
> > that I did not need at all?
> >
> > All of which kind of ticks me off.
> >
> > McAffee isn't the only outfit propagating the Microsoft Assumption. Turn to
> > www.cnet.com and check into the download section. You will find there, after some
> > clicking back and forth that softwares can be found for Linux and BeOS and for the
> > Mac, but the intital presentation of downloads is firmly rooted in the Microsoft
> > Assumption.
> >
> > And so I am wondering whether the Microsoft Assumption is a virus accidentally
> > caught by the community of computer users or whether it is the outcome of a
> > strategy emanating from Redmond and spread by collaborating software vendors and
> > publications. Either which way, though, it is important that the Microsoft
> > Assumption be recognized as an affliction to be gotten rid of. Understanding how
> > best to use computers is hard enough without that distraction.
> >
> > Henry (08)