From: "Geo." 

Your point seems to be that the method one uses to determine what services
are critical or not matters, it doesn't. If you can do what you need
without the service then the service is not critical.

My point is that there are lots of services running by default that most
people don't need to have running.

Geo.

"Rich"  wrote in message news:45eb9161{at}w3.nls.net...
   You are playing word games and not arguing the point.  This is silly.

Rich

  "Geo."  wrote in message
news:45eb90bc{at}w3.nls.net...
  You agreed with their examples of web and ftp, yet for me these might be
  critical services. But for someone who is only using their computer to
  browse and do email there are a whole host of services they can consider
  non-critical.

  You don't seem to make any allowance for that.

  Geo.

  "Rich"  wrote in message news:45eb4555{at}w3.nls.net...
     No.

     We started this silly discussion when you interpreted the statements
you
  attributed to symantec "Turn off and remove unneeded services"
and "many
  operating systems install auxiliary services that are not critical" to
mean
  any service which you would like to turn off regardless of whether it is
  needed or not which you described as " me shutting down all those extra
  services".  Somewhere in there you tried to define
"critical" with the
  laughable "The best way to find out if a service is critical or not is to
  manually stop it and see if anything breaks, if nothing you need breaks
then
  I guess it's not critical huh".

     I agreed with symantec and wrote "There is nothing wrong with disabling
  unnecessary optional services".  This isn't what you do.  What you do you
  wrote above which is to disable things you do not understand and look to
see
  if you are able to perceive an effect that you would call a break.

  Rich

    "Geo."  wrote in message
news:45eb2d2f$1{at}w3.nls.net...
    Didn't we start by you saying symantec's words didn't mean what they
mean?

    Geo.

    "Rich"  wrote in message news:45eb1331$1{at}w3.nls.net...
       Duh!  If the words had exactly the same meaning and connotations then
  we
    wouldn't likely have different words.  If you and geo would like to play
    word games instead of discussing the actual content go ahead.

    Rich

      "Hrvoje Mesing"  wrote in message
    news:45eb07a4{at}w3.nls.net...

      ?
      Not true.

      Critical CAN be needed as unneeded CAN be critical.
      Says my grandmother.

      ...

      ---
      M.



      "Rich"  wrote in message news:45e9d602$1{at}w3.nls.net...
         Roget's Thesaurus disagrees.  See
      http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/critical%20needed.

      Rich

      "Hrvoje Mesing"  wrote in message
      news:45e9a6fd{at}w3.nls.net...

      unneeded != not critical.


      ---
      M.


      "Rich"  wrote in message news:45e6f39e$1{at}w3.nls.net...
         unneeded == unnecessary == optional == not critical.

      Rich
      "Geo."  wrote in message
news:45e6b7c7$1{at}w3.nls.net...
      Hmmm... "unneeded", "auxiliary", "not
critical", I don't see the term
      "unnecessary optional" in there at all Rich.

      Would you say the dns client service is unneeded, auxiliary, not
  critical?
    I
      certainly would unless you are on a large corporate LAN and you argued
    with
      me about it. See your idea of unneeded and mine are vastly different.
To
    you
      unneeded is something that is not used at all, to me it's anything you
  can
      shut down without breaking the functionality you need.

      I would think the security guys at Symantec (the ones who made that
      recommendation) would think like me and judging from the size of their
      products lately, management and the programmers think like you.

      That would explain why they make such a recommendation and at the same
    time
      get exploited as a virus entry point..

      Geo.

      "Rich"  wrote in message news:45e66bb5$1{at}w3.nls.net...
         Better understanding, I don't think so.  Different opinion,
  absolutely.
      There is nothing wrong with disabling unnecessary optional services.
  What
      you do is flailing.

      Rich

        "Geo."  wrote in message
  news:45e64067$2{at}w3.nls.net...
        "Rich"  wrote in message news:45e4eb2b$1{at}w3.nls.net...

        >>   Now you are trying to read more into what symantec wrote.

        Or perhaps I just have a better understanding of that line of
thought.

        Geo.

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5