begin risky.vbs
<i53724-god.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
Jim Richardson <warlock@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Tue, 7 Nov 2006 03:01:38 -0600,
> Erik Funkenbusch <erik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> He doesn't say what version he's running. I did notice this
>> problem back in Beta 2, but have not seen it since RC1. My guess
>> is he's running a fairly old build.
>
> an interesting guess.
A guess but not very interesting me thinks.
>> Which, of course, would mean that your "journalism", by creating
>> your own headlines is, as usual, fraudulent.
>
> all this from a guess?
This is oor Erik after all.
>> "Still Buggy" would have to be based on some knowledge of which
>> version the author was running. Since you didn't have that
>> information, you made it up.
>
> And yet you refer to things as "still broken/vulnerable" when
> updates are available...
>
> So lets see, you *assume* the poster is running an older beta of a
> unreleased software package, and from that assumption, you make
> conclusions about someone else.
>
> Is this another "rough guess"?
That's Funkenbusch speak. To the rest of us it is being a MS
apologist.
--
Security is one of those funny things. You can talk about being "more"
secure, but there's no such thing. A vulnerability is a vulnerability, and
even one makes you just as insecure as anyone else. Security is a binary
condition, either you are or you aren't. - Funkenbusch 1 Oct 2006
|
|
