"ed" <ed@xxxxxxxxxxx> stated in post 20061127222822.4e484968@ed-desktop on
11/27/06 3:24 PM:
> On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 15:21:16 -0700
> Snit <SNIT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> "ed" <ed@xxxxxxxxxxx> stated in post
>> 20061127221954.0452bc02@ed-desktop on 11/27/06 3:15 PM:
>>
>>> On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 19:55:10 +0000
>>> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>> '9 out of 10 e-mails now spam'
>>>>
>>>
>>>> Someone should pass a bill which isolates Windows PC's from the
>>>> Internet.
>>>
>>> that would not cure the problem
>>>
>>> the windows computers are often subject to browser exploits... most
>>> people have at least a software firewall, it's really the social
>>> engineering, browser exploits etc etc, .pif, .exe attachments et al.
>>>
>>> the real thing would be to pass a law of less monopoly on the
>>> desktop. to ensure that no single exploit in a single variant of a
>>> program can cause such havoc.
>>
>> Maybe have everyone make their own Linux distro that is completely
>> incompatible with all others!
>
> compatibility, wtf? i'm talking about having programs that are
> different. the whole freaking point of the internet you moron, is open,
> compatible standards. one does not have to run outlook express just to
> talk email with someone else, one is free to choose from a variety of
> programs.
>
> and besides. suse is compatible with debian is compatible with redhat is
> compatibe with freebsd is compatible with openbsd ... it goes on. they
> all have ssh, they all have nfs.
Um, ed, I was kidding. Hence the smiley, which you conveniently snipped.
--
? Teaching is a "real job"
? The path "~/users/username/library/widget" is not common on any OS
? The term "all widgets" does not specify a specific subgroup of widgets
|
|
