BoB wrote:
> Jay T. Blocksom wrote:
>> "Dick Hazeleger" wrote:
>>> Darkhorse wrote:
>>>
>>>> Can SpywareBlaster be updated manually, or do I need to redownload
>>>> the main program every time a update is available?
>>>
>>> Hi Darkhorse,
>>>
>>> If you would download the entire program each time you still would
>>> have to update it through the Internet.
>>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> Which is (at least) Strike Two.
>>
>> While such integrated "auto-update" features are popular, and
>> becoming moreso, they also inherently place the user in the
>> unenviable position of not being able to properly monitor or control
>> changes to his own system's configuration;
>
> New changes via update, are made only for those items 'you' select.
> It is the only auto-updating program where you 'do' have control and
> can easily see what changes are 'proposed' prior to your acceptance.
>
>> and worse, it's necessarily making these changes while you
>> have a live open connection to the 'net going -- not a good idea, in
>> my book.
>
> There is no reason to leave the connection open. The info is
> downloaded, disconnect and decide which of those changes 'you' want
> to implement.
>
>> Of course, in the case of the title in question, this is something
>> of a moot point since the program itself is by definition
>> essentially pointless: It concerns itself (at least nearly)
>> exclusively to blocking *some* ActiveX controls; but if the target
>> system is set up properly, NO ActiveX controls would ever get
>> downloaded or executed anyway.
>
> The vast majority of users don't know enough to take control of
> ActiveX
> or any of the other semi-dangerous functions. But then they also don't
> know enough to DL and use Spyware Blaster either.
>
>> Beyond that, I've seen no
>> evidence that it does anything which other utilities (such as Cookie
>> Cop, Proxomitron,
>
> Some users do not want to get involved with proxy software or have
> simpler ways to control cookies.
>
>> InCtrl,
>
> IC is for monitoring system and registry changes during installs of
> new programs. Nothing similar to Spyware Blaster's function.
>
>> or the old stand-bys AdAware and SS&D) don't already do better.
>
> These are after-the-fact cleanup programs. Spyware Blaster is a
> prevention tool.
>
> Sorry if it sounds like I'm nit-picking.

You are not nit-picking Jay T. Blocksome is.
Wish he would go and spend the rest of his life installing Linux and
harasing the Linux folk and we would not have to read his inane drivel that
people respond to trying to give him a clue.
Trying to decide which is better to describe him:
http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame63.html
http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame78.html