Zone alarm, you have failed me for the first time... and the last. (BLODA news)

Dave Korn
Wed Jul 22 09:34:00 GMT 2009

Warren Young wrote:
> Dave Korn wrote:
>> Warren Young wrote:
>>> Dave Korn wrote:
>>>> Newer versions of ZA don't run on w2k
>>> Is Win2K still running on old time zone data, or did MS finally cave to
>>> the pressure to release that patch without requiring a $1000 payment?
>>   I have no idea.
> You would know if it did, if you're in an area of the world where the
> DST rules changed after MS declared "no more patches" for such things.
> In most of the US, for instance, your system time would have been off by
> an hour for several weeks during the year for the past two years.  If
> your locale's DST rules did change recently and you didn't notice a time
> problem, MS must have relented.  There was a huge stink over this.

  Well I'm in the UK, I dunno if the rules have changed at all recently, and
every once in a while I notice my PC has or hasn't got got a DST change right
or wrong, but never more than twice a year.

  My love of w2k is based on it being the most lightweight version of the OS
in years, and it having also had the longest time to get debugged and stable,
but obviously it's not suitable for a corporate environment.  It still WJFFM
in a home environment and there's still /quite/ a lot of new software coming
out that's compatible enough to run on it.

>>> Expiration is not the same thing as revocation.
>>   I know.  I was suggesting it should be, otherwise there's simply no
>> point doing it at all.
> Sure there is.  It benefits the CA -- more $$ -- 

  That's precisely my idea of pointless: pointless churn for the sake of it!

> and it benefits the
> rest of us by encouraging people to keep their certs current.  

  Huh?  How does that help?

> Which
> cert would you trust more, one where the CA says it was current as of N
> months ago (N < 12) or one where the CA says it was current 6 years ago
> when it was first created?

  Well, I do maths, and in maths, what you just asked me was:

>  Which would you trust more, a statement from N months ago that a^y mod m
> = b, or a statement from 6 years ago that c^y mod m = d ?

  Why would how long ago the statement was made have any bearing on its truth
or falsity if maths hasn't changed in the mean time?


More information about the Cygwin-talk mailing list