• (cs) in reply to trtrwtf
    trtrwtf:
    moving through space:
    Face it: 8 was dumbed-down tremendously in an attempt to capture the iCrowd that buys a new touch device every 3 months and others who can't spend ten minutes away from their social media.

    Um, yeah. That's where the money is. People who have the brains and the sense to get something real done aren't using Windows*, so Microsoft doesn't market to them.

    *voluntarily, at least.

    Just wrong.

  • (cs)

    Charles Robinson nerd fail. Redshirt death was predominantly an original Star Trek trope, where they used the term "landing party", not "away team".

    Even more sad though is that he felt he actually had to explain the redshirt reference to a forum full of nerds.

  • Chelloveck (unregistered) in reply to snoofle
    snoofle:
    Filtering executable files is a great idea, but it should never be extension based. I can't tell you the number of times I've had to mail a batch or executable file to someone for legitimate purposes only to have it blocked. Invariably, you just rename it myexecutable.gif and state in the email to rename it. It's the ONE thing users seem to understand how to do.

    That's because malware authors use the same trick and have trained the users quite well.

  • Thomas (unregistered) in reply to Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward:
    Only advice you can give is to just tell to not open any attachments from anyone, better yet, just remove them from the email on the server.
    But then you end up with the emailers sending random file upload site links, and clicking on one of those is not any better really.
  • (cs) in reply to Neil
    Neil:
    I would put the blame squarely on Joe himself. He should have removed the message from Jane's mailbox and made sure to submit a sample to their anti-malware vendor. Leaving live malware where your users can get to it is a recipe for (more) disaster.

    My interpretation, especially since the original was a nonpropagating worm, is that this was a new, different email.

  • (cs) in reply to Quanta
    Quanta:
    anonymous:
    Nothing of this would have happened if they used Linux desktops

    Nothing at all would've happened if they'd used Linux desktops. No work, no email, no browsing, nothing.

    You think people who are too dumb to know that executable email attachments shouldn't be opened would know how to use Linux for their day-to-day business needs?

    Well, yes. Open browser = click on the browser icon. Open email = click on the email icon. As long as they don't touch anything else, they're fine.

  • (cs) in reply to faoileag

    Can't Windows restrict running executables? Why the hell do they have admin access to their computer anyway?

    If there's an IT department, nontechnical users SHOULD NOT have ANY kind of access to the workings of the computer. The computer is just there to run whichever productivity software they have to run.

  • (cs) in reply to Phil
    Phil:
    This reminds me of the following quote (from Thief of Time by Terry Pratchett):

    “Some humans would do anything to see if it was possible to do it. If you put a large switch in some cave somewhere, with a sign on it saying 'End-of-the-World Switch. PLEASE DO N

    BOOP

  • (cs) in reply to spamcourt
    spamcourt:
    Can't Windows restrict running executables?
    Yes, it can.
    Why the hell do they have admin access to their computer anyway?
    Who said they did? The very purpose of an operating system is to facilitate running programs. It's not the sort of thing that gets locked down by default.
  • Jim the Tool (unregistered)

    Two WTFs here:

    1. That executables could be run from email (or from any the user writable space).
    2. That people actually think workers won't open email viruses, worms and trojans.

    I'm a pretty smart kinda person. At home I wouldn't dream of running some random shit that just arrived in my email. And if it appeared to come from someone I knew, I would at least verify with them first, and still would probably run it in a VM. But at work? Fuck, what do I care if the machines get fucked up. It's not my computer. It's also not my job to make sure the computers work fine.

    So, you can complain about users all you want. But if you don't want them to do something, implement a technical solution so that it is impossible for them to do it (see point 1 above). A post-event "solution" (like firing them) wont work either.

    Captcha: luctus. Joe luctus when he got a fancy new chair.

  • Jazz (unregistered) in reply to Quanta
    Quanta:
    anonymous:
    Nothing of this would have happened if they used Linux desktops
    You think people who are too dumb to know that executable email attachments shouldn't be opened would know how to use Linux for their day-to-day business needs?

    They already don't know how to use Windows for their day-to-day business needs. They just memorize a process: "Click this button, then type my password in this doohickey, press return, look at the list of items, click any six of them, check the box, click Submit, and I get paid!" What's going to be the difference between idiots blindly following a script on Windows and the same idiots blindly following a script on Linux? Nothing! Except that it's going to be a lot harder for them to break the Linux box.

    (Captcha: "bene" -- if the bene-fits, wear it.)

  • n_slash_a (unregistered) in reply to anonymous
    anonymous:
    Nothing of this would have happened if they used Linux desktops. Plus, budget savings.

    Captcha: distineo... if you use Windows, it's your destiny to get your computer loaded with crap until totally busted.

    You are correct, since the company would have gone under years earlier due to sky-rocketing costs of the Helpless Desk due to an avalanche of questions "Where is the Start Menu?"

  • urza9814 (unregistered) in reply to Jo Dope
    Jo Dope:
    >>Windows 8 is already hugely different than Windows 7

    The start menu is full screen now. People jump on the "We hate Windows 8" bandwagon so quickly these days that it's really boring. The problems with 8 are usually dumbasses that don't care to learn something very mildly new.

    Soo...the problem with Windows 8 is the exact same problem you'd face with Linux?

  • (cs) in reply to snoofle
    snoofle:
    Filtering executable files is a great idea, but it should never be extension based. I can't tell you the number of times I've had to mail a batch or executable file to someone for legitimate purposes only to have it blocked. Invariably, you just rename it myexecutable.gif and state in the email to rename it. It's the ONE thing users seem to understand how to do.

    Or I just zip it.

    I have to send iterations of software to head office where it is used. I do send the source, but I also send an executable. Why should my boss have to hassle with creating an executable?

    Sincerely,

    Gene Wirchenko

  • (cs)

    Look, email should be PLAIN TEXT only. If you want more than that, use a file sharing service and put the link as plain text in the message.

    It would be even better if prominent companies (banks, etc.) would do this as well, and state it as being more secure!

    Attachments in email are a total waste!

  • Ohako (unregistered)

    someone at my company clicked on it, because they were so charmed that some random Internet stranger loved them.

    woops!

  • (cs) in reply to Phil
    Phil:
    This reminds me of the following quote (from Thief of Time by Terry Pratchett):

    “Some humans would do anything to see if it was possible to do it. If you put a large switch in some cave somewhere, with a sign on it saying 'End-of-the-World Switch. PLEASE DO NOT TOUCH', the paint wouldn't even have time to dry.”

    I saw an actual End-of-the-world switch at the Titan Missile Museum in Tucson, Arizona. Apparently, it wasn't pushed when it was active. Still a little too scary for my peace of mind.

  • (cs) in reply to ubersoldat
    ubersoldat:
    Bullshit, you're too dumb to work with a computer, assume it, let your seat be taken and go work somewhere your incompetence is not a risk, like flipping burgers.
    Let's hope not.[wikipedia.org]
  • remember (unregistered)

    They didn't have to run anything. I'm not going to bother to look it up, but there was a time when MS-Outlook was so stupid that it would run an executable without the user having to click on it.

    I think that included screen saver installs and stupid stuff like that. The popular anti-virus method was to disable the preview pane.

    Stupid Outlook.

  • (cs) in reply to cellocgw
    cellocgw:
    My interpretation, especially since the original was a nonpropagating worm, is that this was a new, different email.

    That's what I figured, too.

  • (cs) in reply to cellocgw
    cellocgw:
    My interpretation, especially since the original was a nonpropagating worm, is that this was a new, different email.
    You left out "little" and "yellow".

    Okay, two things about the actual featured anecdote:

    Once upon a time, I found myself in the unenviable position of having to send packages of related files (source, tables, documents and whatnot) over Lotus Notes. Don't attach the files separately, because sure as shootin' half the people receiving them are going to miss at least one, and then what they pick up won't work.

    Obvious solution: put 'em all in a .zip archive. Problem with obvious solution: this was only of use for recipients who had spent some time screaming and hollering at the Preventer of Information Services to get WinZip or anything else capable of extracting the files installed on their workstations.

    Refined solution: use WinZip to create a self-extracting® archive and mail that to the target audience. Problem with refined solution: a self-extracting® archive is an executable, with extension .exe. None of the people who had been forced to sit through the data-security presentations would dare touch them.

    Second observation about the featured WTF: You don't suppose, do you, that the vast majority of malware found in the wild is actually created by IT security people as a trap for employees who won't follow prescribed safe-handling instructions, and most of it has simply escaped the reservation because of the sheer number of such employees?

  • s73v3r (unregistered) in reply to faoileag
    faoileag:
    ubersoldat:
    I would've fired all the 50 of them. It's 2013 people....
    So you fire 50 people who click on anything that arrives in their inbox. So you hire 50 other people. Who, regarding their behaviour in respect to malware in their inbox, are probably as dumb as the 50 you just fired. But aren't as productive in the first few weeks.

    Instead you could fire Joe for not installing a mail system that does not deliver .exe files in emails to the end user.

    Or, if Joe requested such a system but didn't get the budget to install it, fire the bean counters who denied him the funds.

    Firing the 50 is putting paint on the symptoms. Setting up your mail system so that the 50 can't do any harm any more is fixing the root cause.

    You've got that backwards. Blocking email attachments from running is putting a band-aid on the symptoms. Firing the people dumb enough to click on attachments, especially when they're told not to, is fixing the problem

  • trtrwtf (unregistered) in reply to da Doctah

    [quote user="da Doctah"][quote user="cellocgw"] Once upon a time, I found myself in the unenviable position of having to send packages of related files (source, tables, documents and whatnot) over Lotus Notes. Don't attach the files separately, because sure as shootin' half the people receiving them are going to miss at least one, and then what they pick up won't work.

    Obvious solution: put 'em all in a .zip archive. Problem with obvious solution: this was only of use for recipients who had spent some time screaming and hollering at the Preventer of Information Services to get WinZip or anything else capable of extracting the files installed on their workstations.

    Refined solution: use WinZip to create a self-extracting® archive and mail that to the target audience. Problem with refined solution: a self-extracting® archive is an executable, with extension .exe. None of the people who had been forced to sit through the data-security presentations would dare touch them. [/quote]

    You mean that actual users in the real world sometimes do things for reasons? Get out...

    The trouble I'm seeing with the "just block everything" responses is that when you set up security as a war between the users and IT, the users will win: they've got IT outnumbered, and a screwup that they make in seconds can take hours to unravel.

  • Joshua (unregistered) in reply to Smouch

    I'm surprised I had to scroll so far to see this comment.

  • Joshua (unregistered) in reply to Smouch
    Smouch:
    Joe sounds like a moron for not configuring the mail sever anti-virus to remove any executable image attachment.

    Er..this was the comment I was referring to.

  • stew (unregistered)
    the worm ... couldn’t propagate on its own
    If only Joe was slightly luckier, then he would've also discovered it was a virus that didn't infect its host, and all could have simply sighed in relief at the near-miss. But I guess one can't have everything in life....
  • (cs) in reply to stew
    stew:
    a virus that didn't infect its host

    heh

  • (cs) in reply to flabdablet
    flabdablet:
    snoofle:
    Filtering executable files is a great idea, but it should never be extension based. I can't tell you the number of times I've had to mail a batch or executable file to someone for legitimate purposes only to have it blocked. Invariably, you just rename it myexecutable.gif and state in the email to rename it. It's the ONE thing users seem to understand how to do.

    Not since Windows XP decided to hide extensions for known filetypes by default. Myexecutable.gif is no good, since all the naive user will see in Windows Explorer is myexecutable; use myexecutable.exe.renamed instead, or double-zip it with a password on the inner zip envelope so that scanners can't see there's a .exe inside.

    The first day I'm working on a new machine, I turn off hiding of file extensions. Because of the quantum entanglement nature of the Windows code base, this also changes when you save a file in notepad as "hosts." to save it without any extension "hosts", vs. saving it as "hosts..txt"

  • (cs) in reply to bgodot

    I'm a fan of 'brain-engagement' warning messages.

    "Opening a Executable from the Internet is a dangerous operation, to continue enter the result of 15 minus 3:"

    I'd like to see a study of that helps activate the critical thinking parts of the brain or not.

  • Your Name (unregistered) in reply to moving through space
    moving through space:
    Jo Dope:
    >>Windows 8 is already hugely different than Windows 7

    The start menu is full screen now. People jump on the "We hate Windows 8" bandwagon so quickly these days that it's really boring. The problems with 8 are usually dumbasses that don't care to learn something very mildly new.

    Perhaps. But it could also be that twitter and facebook feeds along with "10 things you won't believe you didn't notice in famous movies", the weather and Hotmail emails I've been ignoring are not important enough to dominate my entire screen surface on what is supposed to be a productive machine. Face it: 8 was dumbed-down tremendously in an attempt to capture the iCrowd that buys a new touch device every 3 months and others who can't spend ten minutes away from their social media.

    It's got nothing to do with that, actually.

    Microsoft saw the "Apple App Store"/"Google Play Android Market Whatever It's Called Now" model where the OS vendor got a nice fat 30% slice off of all application sales. Everyone in Redmond simultaneously facepalmed -- they've had their OS in the dominant position on the desktop market for decades now and they're not skimming anything off the top. How do they get in on this?

    Well, they can't just start saying that every application on Windows must go through their Windows App Play Market Store or whatever; that would kill the golden goose. Nobody will buy Windows if it doesn't run the collection of software that they've been building up since 1995. So they allow such "legacy" software to run in "legacy desktop mode" and bundle their Windows Store for the new "Don't Call It Metro" interface. Design the OS to kick the user into Metro until they're sufficiently trained (seriously, even the bundled PDF reader does it, ffs!), require all Metro apps to be distributed through the "Windows Store", and there you go!

    Developers would surely love the ease of releasing apps through this method, users will get used to using Metro and want to purchase applications that work with it (or at least use the Windows Store to buy applications), and Microsoft will skim 30% of the purchase price off of every copy of Photoshop or Calladuty or whatever.

    Only it looks like the users aren't going along with the plan. Too bad, I guess.

  • SheRa (unregistered) in reply to bgodot

    (CAPTCHA: caecus - Just in caecus you're wondering...)

    I sit near sales now...and the VP loves to lecture. Favorite topic: "Our Brains are lazy!"

    Think of all the short-cuts we use to get jobs done - the Critical Brain mass requires calories and wants to chill out most of the time.

    Maybe that's why a red-shirt always signed up for an "landing-party" assignment. He didn't think about it...

    ...I'm tired...

  • (cs) in reply to bgodot
    bgodot:
    flabdablet:
    snoofle:
    Filtering executable files is a great idea, but it should never be extension based. I can't tell you the number of times I've had to mail a batch or executable file to someone for legitimate purposes only to have it blocked. Invariably, you just rename it myexecutable.gif and state in the email to rename it. It's the ONE thing users seem to understand how to do.

    Not since Windows XP decided to hide extensions for known filetypes by default. Myexecutable.gif is no good, since all the naive user will see in Windows Explorer is myexecutable; use myexecutable.exe.renamed instead, or double-zip it with a password on the inner zip envelope so that scanners can't see there's a .exe inside.

    The first day I'm working on a new machine, I turn off hiding of file extensions. Because of the quantum entanglement nature of the Windows code base, this also changes when you save a file in notepad as "hosts." to save it without any extension "hosts", vs. saving it as "hosts..txt"

    The real WTF is using Notepad. Sorry but I've just laughed so hard I pissed in your pants.

  • (cs) in reply to StephenCleary
    StephenCleary:
    Anyway, one day our register system went down with a .NET exception! Apparently, they were running some funky WinForms-on-embedded-.NET for their touchscreen registers. The manager acted like that happens all the time, wrote down the call stack, and called them up. It was a basic NullReferenceException right at startup, so I also suggested that they should do unit testing (or any testing, really) before a rollout.

    One day at work (McDonald's), the satellite internet connection we were using went down. We couldn't process any credit cards for the rest of the day because nobody knew how to activate the backup dialup system.

  • Almafuerte (unregistered)

    Let's see:

    He runs a network with no default network, and a web proxy with draconian filters, he scans every single inbound email with an antivirus, and filters spam ... but he doesn't block executable attachments? That's TRWTF.

    When you have a network full of idiots, all file transfers (email, web, whatever other protocol he allows) should be filtered on a white-list basis. You can get doc, xls, ods, pdf, jpg, png, etc. Anything not on the list, gets quarantined. You still get the email with an attached notice saying an attachment was removed. The users can request it if required, and you can manually check the damn file.

    There, problem solved.

  • Anonymous (unregistered)

    The real WTF is after all these years of having these problems with viruses is no one thought to use a system to sandbox programs. You could intercept disk read and write function calls from a program and only allow it to use designated folders that it has 'permission' to use. You could even include such a feature in the OS itself for convenience. Much simpler than maintaining virus signature databases and doing virus scans. A popup message cold say:

    dancingBunnies.exe has requested to delete C:* Abort this operation? YES NO

    To quote Theodoric of York "Naaaa".

  • (cs) in reply to Matt Westwood
    Matt Westwood:
    bgodot:
    flabdablet:
    snoofle:
    Filtering executable files is a great idea, but it should never be extension based. I can't tell you the number of times I've had to mail a batch or executable file to someone for legitimate purposes only to have it blocked. Invariably, you just rename it myexecutable.gif and state in the email to rename it. It's the ONE thing users seem to understand how to do.

    Not since Windows XP decided to hide extensions for known filetypes by default. Myexecutable.gif is no good, since all the naive user will see in Windows Explorer is myexecutable; use myexecutable.exe.renamed instead, or double-zip it with a password on the inner zip envelope so that scanners can't see there's a .exe inside.

    The first day I'm working on a new machine, I turn off hiding of file extensions. Because of the quantum entanglement nature of the Windows code base, this also changes when you save a file in notepad as "hosts." to save it without any extension "hosts", vs. saving it as "hosts..txt"

    The real WTF is using Notepad. Sorry but I've just laughed so hard I pissed in your pants.

    Should I use Wordpad instead? or just "COPY CON: FILENAME" from a command prompt?

  • Sger (unregistered) in reply to Phil
    Phil:
    This reminds me of the following quote (from Thief of Time by Terry Pratchett):

    “Some humans would do anything to see if it was possible to do it. If you put a large switch in some cave somewhere, with a sign on it saying 'End-of-the-World Switch. PLEASE DO NOT TOUCH', the paint wouldn't even have time to dry.”

    I'm late to the party... In Sydney, Australia there is a small nuclear reactor used primarily for research. It is a popular destination for physics class excursions.

    During a visit to the site one of the scientists told me they had a Big Red Button they would wire up in an accessible location whenever a school excursion came through.

    The button was connected to a counter. It's purpose was to count how many kids were ...brave... enough to press a Big Red Button in a nuclear reactor. Apparently there were always a few.

  • (cs) in reply to bgodot
    bgodot:
    The first day I'm working on a new machine, I turn off hiding of file extensions. Because of the quantum entanglement nature of the Windows code base, this also changes when you save a file in notepad as "hosts." to save it without any extension "hosts", vs. saving it as "hosts..txt"
    I used to do that as well. I stopped after finding that, on balance, the extension hiding feature was saving me more support time than it cost. If you give users the power to stop their spreadsheets opening by destroying the filename extension while renaming them, they will do that.

    Windows extension hiding has been in place long enough now that most users simply don't know that extensions are a thing.

    This is probably as it always should have been. Name and format should always have been separate pieces of file metadata. Mashing them together is lazy design, akin to putting comma separated values in a database text column.

  • joeb (unregistered) in reply to flabdablet
    flabdablet:
    bgodot:
    The first day I'm working on a new machine, I turn off hiding of file extensions. Because of the quantum entanglement nature of the Windows code base, this also changes when you save a file in notepad as "hosts." to save it without any extension "hosts", vs. saving it as "hosts..txt"
    I used to do that as well. I stopped after finding that, on balance, the extension hiding feature was saving me more support time than it cost. If you give users the power to stop their spreadsheets opening by destroying the filename extension while renaming them, they will do that.

    Windows extension hiding has been in place long enough now that most users simply don't know that extensions are a thing.

    This is probably as it always should have been. Name and format should always have been separate pieces of file metadata. Mashing them together is lazy design, akin to putting comma separated values in a database text column.

    it's a old dos 8.3 thing.

  • Cole (unregistered) in reply to herby
    herby:
    Look, email should be PLAIN TEXT only. If you want more than that, use a file sharing service and put the link as plain text in the message.

    It would be even better if prominent companies (banks, etc.) would do this as well, and state it as being more secure!

    Attachments in email are a total waste!

    The only HTML needed in emails is indenting with blockquote. Even then, we could just use > and have the email client add blockquotes for you.

    CAPTCHA: minim - Plain text is the bare minim. Just what we need to help with idiots that open suspicious emails.

  • (cs) in reply to bgodot
    bgodot:
    Matt Westwood:
    bgodot:
    flabdablet:
    snoofle:
    Filtering executable files is a great idea, but it should never be extension based. I can't tell you the number of times I've had to mail a batch or executable file to someone for legitimate purposes only to have it blocked. Invariably, you just rename it myexecutable.gif and state in the email to rename it. It's the ONE thing users seem to understand how to do.

    Not since Windows XP decided to hide extensions for known filetypes by default. Myexecutable.gif is no good, since all the naive user will see in Windows Explorer is myexecutable; use myexecutable.exe.renamed instead, or double-zip it with a password on the inner zip envelope so that scanners can't see there's a .exe inside.

    The first day I'm working on a new machine, I turn off hiding of file extensions. Because of the quantum entanglement nature of the Windows code base, this also changes when you save a file in notepad as "hosts." to save it without any extension "hosts", vs. saving it as "hosts..txt"

    The real WTF is using Notepad. Sorry but I've just laughed so hard I pissed in your pants.

    Should I use Wordpad instead? or just "COPY CON: FILENAME" from a command prompt?

    What's wrong with Notepad++, to take the most obvious example?

    If you need to know how to edit your hosts file but still haven't learned how (or haven't got the commercial authos) to install what are basically now near as dammit industry-standard free s/w then that is TRWTF.

  • Cole (unregistered) in reply to joeb
    joeb:
    flabdablet:
    bgodot:
    The first day I'm working on a new machine, I turn off hiding of file extensions. Because of the quantum entanglement nature of the Windows code base, this also changes when you save a file in notepad as "hosts." to save it without any extension "hosts", vs. saving it as "hosts..txt"
    I used to do that as well. I stopped after finding that, on balance, the extension hiding feature was saving me more support time than it cost. If you give users the power to stop their spreadsheets opening by destroying the filename extension while renaming them, they will do that.

    Windows extension hiding has been in place long enough now that most users simply don't know that extensions are a thing.

    This is probably as it always should have been. Name and format should always have been separate pieces of file metadata. Mashing them together is lazy design, akin to putting comma separated values in a database text column.

    it's a old dos 8.3 thing.

    DOS would save a file with the name "NoVirus.exe" as "NOVIRUS .EXE" with a space.

  • (cs) in reply to bjolling
    bjolling:
    There are plenty cheap start menu replacement out there if you prefer a Windows 7 style menu or even a completely different kind of start menu.
    CHEAP?

    You mean, you PAID MONEY for a Start menu replacement?

    ...Good gosh, I'm beyond words. The first two Google results for "windows 8 start menu replacement" show many free applications for this. I personally recommend Classic Shell.

  • Jason (unregistered) in reply to ubersoldat
    ubersoldat:
    I would've fired all the 50 of them.

    It's 2013 people. Almost every business today has been running from a computer for at least 5 freaking years and you, as an employee, who sits all day long in front of that computer, your tool of the trade, still don't know that malware spreads by email and that you should not ever open an executable?

    Bullshit, you're too dumb to work with a computer, assume it, let your seat be taken and go work somewhere your incompetence is not a risk, like flipping burgers.

    I don't want no steenkin food poisoning!!

  • some user (unregistered) in reply to Quanta
    Quanta:
    anonymous:
    Nothing of this would have happened if they used Linux desktops

    Nothing at all would've happened if they'd used Linux desktops. No work, no email, no browsing, nothing.

    You think people who are too dumb to know that executable email attachments shouldn't be opened would know how to use Linux for their day-to-day business needs?

    You think an IT department who cannot configure their mailserver to filter executable attachments would be able to configure Linux desktops?

    INB4 ERMAGERD UBUNTU IS TEH EAZIEST LINUX FAR EAZIER THAN WINDOZE!

    we gotta do what now? No seriously...what is this configure you speak of?

    Surely Mainteneance will configure my desktop and IT will configure my computer?

  • (cs)

    I'd love to know what a "Machiavellian filter" is.

  • Adrian (unregistered) in reply to moz

    He didn't steal anything. The chair is still on company premises.

  • Tin (unregistered) in reply to Someone
    Someone:
    I find Unity to be far more frustrating to use than Windows 8

    So get rid of Unity and use something that's not crap. Solved. No harder than the "fix" for TIFKAM in Win8.

    Also, I find it ironic how many people are suggesting users should just learn TIFKAM, when for years, "learning Linux" was the prime reason people had for not using it...

  • Jan (unregistered)

    Belgian Email Virus:

    Hi, This is a virus. Format your hard drive and then email me to all your friends.

  • Your Name (unregistered) in reply to lucidfox
    lucidfox:
    bjolling:
    There are plenty cheap start menu replacement out there if you prefer a Windows 7 style menu or even a completely different kind of start menu.
    CHEAP?

    You mean, you PAID MONEY for a Start menu replacement?

    ...Good gosh, I'm beyond words. The first two Google results for "windows 8 start menu replacement" show many free applications for this. I personally recommend Classic Shell.

    Stardock Start8 works better than Classic Shell and costs less than a sandwich.

    "software that costs money working better than Holy Free Libre Gratis Open Source Software? That's unpossible!"

    No, it's true, give it a go; the first thirty days are free.

Leave a comment on “The Email Virus”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

Log Out

« Return to Article