Tobias, will SFFS put anything in the log for inaccessible folders/files? I guess that would be a good way for people to make sure that it's doing what they need with the service settings they are using.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
I just got "bit" by the scheduling feature in SFFS. I thought it was scheduled for earlier this afternoon but a reboot of my PC naturally had shut down SFFS and it is not set to auto-start, so - nothing happened.-J-Mac (November 16, 2007, 03:58 PM)
This is one of the poorest UI's I have seen in a while. It does sync fast and true, but I now know that I have to be exceedingly careful about every setting and test them all in every conceivable situation, as the developers have not put the customers' ease of use anywhere near the top of the feature list!-J-Mac (November 16, 2007, 03:58 PM)
As far as swapping, I'm going to use SATA drives, so I've learned that you can just hot swap them, which is cool!-superboyac (November 01, 2006, 05:29 PM)
If you feel it's ahk's fault, post ait at the ahk forum. I'm sure they'll be able to provide a solution or if there is no solution, they'll solve it on the next release. At least, that's how it's happened with me-jgpaiva (October 26, 2006, 03:57 AM)
NeilS, adopting software with a nasty EULA is like playing the backwards lottery. You are betting that you won't be the one to get the hammer dropped on you. But no matter how good the odds are, it's still a bet.-Jimdoria (October 23, 2006, 03:24 PM)
Here's the reason why you thought it was apple's (it is ).-jgpaiva (October 23, 2006, 10:14 AM)
Combine that with the multi-input display stuff from apple(?)...-f0dder (October 22, 2006, 10:58 AM)
Policies can change over the time. If more than occasionally pain in the butt even MS will have to adjust.-dk70 (October 22, 2006, 09:03 AM)
Neil, I'd be a lot less suspicious of this from the A/V vendor side if there were more unanimous outcry about it, and if the firms I actually respect had a problem with it. But as is, like I said, it's mostly the firms I don't like and who I think make poor products anyway (that don't protect that well *as it is*) that are crying for this level of access. Frankly I don't want Mcafee or Symantic digging around in my kernel! The problem is you can't just allow access to only them, either. It has to be basically opened up for anyone with "the right credentials" to access. That seems like a huge and unnecessary hole to me.-JavaJones (October 18, 2006, 09:03 PM)
As for legitimate reasons, you speculate they have some, but I've not heard of any. I'm no expert, but from where I stand MS's arguments make at least as much sense as the A/V vendors - IMO a good deal more in fact. The only thing that gives me pause about it is MS caving so quickly, but I think the antitrust stuff, especially in the EU, is playing heavily into that, so the picture is not entirely clear without that taken into account.-JavaJones (October 18, 2006, 09:03 PM)
Locking people out of the kernel is a pretty low-level security measure to protect against a relatively few very specific attacks. Most viruses *do not* alter the kernel at present, and A/V providers shouldn't necessarily have to either. MS already said they would allow companies to replace their warnings and whatnot with their own version - that seems to be enough to satisfy the needs you outline (which I agree are very legitimate). All I can really say to that in closing is that from what I've seen 3rd party companies have historically always been responsible for *complicating* the security and protection scenarious, not simplifying them (albeit they do generally provide more protection than MS's defaults). So I'm not sure I really see your point. I agree that is basically what these companies are arguing, but I'm just not convinced at all that they need this level of access to provide their services adequately.-JavaJones (October 18, 2006, 04:09 PM)