On 2006-12-15, Erik Funkenbusch <erik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> posted something concerning:
> On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 07:31:55 -0600, Sinister Midget wrote:
>
>> On 2006-12-15, Erik Funkenbusch <erik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> posted something concerning:
>>> On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 07:38:59 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>
>>>> __/ [ Sinister Midget ] on Friday 15 December 2006 02:14 \__
>>>>
>>>>> On 2006-12-15, Erik Funkenbusch <erik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> posted
>>>>> something concerning:
>>>>>> On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 16:50:16 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Microsoft Releases First IE7 Update
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>>>>>>| When visiting certain web pages, the Phishing Filter may increase
>>>>>>>| CPU usage while evaluating the page contents and the system may
>>>>>>>| become slow to respond.
>>>>>>> `----
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.msfn.org/comments.php?shownews=19020
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It took only /days/ (post release) before security patches were needed
>>>>>>> for IE7 security vulnerabilities.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Stop lying Roy.
>>>>>
>>>>> Apology accepted.
>>>>
>>>> You made his post visible...
>>>>
>>>> Neither did I say it was a security issue not did I imply so. Erik was
>>>> imaginative. He think too laterally.
>>>
>>> What the fuck else does this mean then?:
>>>
>>>>>>> It took only /days/ (post release) before security patches were needed
>>>>>>> for IE7 security vulnerabilities.
>>
>> Maybe this:
>>
>> http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,127564-pg,1-RSS,RSS/article.html
>>
>> It's not plural. But that claim, which you want to center on, can be
>> dismissed as a mistake on Roy's part. I make them all of the time:
>> 'but' becomes 'buy', 'it' becomes' 'ot', and whole sentences become
>> gibberish.
>
> It's not an IE7 flaw. It's like saying that a flaw in Acrobat is an IE
> flaw just because IE is used to exploit it. Oh wait, you guys already
> tried to claim that one.
Excuse me while I take the word of someone who isn't MS, isn't always
in aposition to apologize for them (as is someone nearby) and who put
this right at the top:
First IE7 Security Flaw Found
> Ok, it's like saying the flaw in GreaseMonkey that was pretty bad was
> Firefox's flaw. Not.
Do you have a headline from a magazine that carries some clout making
claims like that? I do.
>> We know you never make any mistakes, though. That's why we never hear
>> from you when we point them out. Like a recent mistake you didn't make
>> wherein you describe my machine as being a server based on your
>> criteria for showing MS machines can be servers with GUIs, media
>> players, games, graphics packages, browsers and so forth.
>
> He didn't make a "typo", there is no IE7 flaws that have been reported.
Except the one I pointed out.
Maybe there's a retraction somewhere. Maybe there's a correction put
out by somebody who isn't on the MS payroll.* Or perhaps someone
explained (other than MS and employees of MS*) how this isn't a flaw in
IE7. But if one of those exists, I haven't seen it.
And the plural part could be a mistake, rather than an intentional act,
whether the other is correct or not.
* Including, but not limited to, Gartner, The Yankee Group, those
benefitting from MS advertising, those pressured by MS based by some
"agreement" (of the sort that you guys keep saying doesn't exist
because MS is as pure as the driven snow since the anti-trust
efforts), those receiving benefit from some relationship with MS
(both monetary and non-monetary, both direct and indirect), SCO,
Movell, etc.
--
Any dimwit can run Windows XP. And they usually do.
|
|
