7 <website_has_email@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> asstroturfer Erik Funkenbusch wrote on behalf of micoshaft corporation:
>> On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 23:13:52 +0200, Roy Culley wrote:
>>> Since your gambling return you haven't continued your inane
>>> followups to Roy S' posts. Has your master plan backfired. Is
>>> their something cunning in your not making these inane followups
>>> Come on Erik, you said there was a plan. What was it? Or were you
>>> just being a plonker as usual?
>> I've been too busy catching up to respond to most of Roy's tripe,
>> don't worry, i've not forgotten.
> So you had forgotten!
> Anyway, OK by me, you plan to be a continuing idiot. Just watch out
> you don't become a cubicle monster like that flat footed Hadron
> Qirk, and other flat topped flippy floppy fishy things.
It is abundantly clear the plan was to flood COLA with pathetic one
liner replies to Roy's posts. I didn't think Erik was that stupid.
Seems he was and will no doubt do it again to prove me wrong. Perhaps
the plan was to get other wintrolls to do likewise. Flatfish certainly
fell for it for a while but nym shifting is more his game so s/h/it
didn't last long.
Erik is just a MS apologist who hates any advocacy that meets the COLA
charter and shows how Linux and OSS is better than CSS solutions and
or shows weaknesses in MS SW. Erik says he isn't paid to post here so
I can only assume he must utterly hate Roy S for showing how much
Linux and OSS are advancing and just how crap his beloved Windows is.
I mean. 2 security vulnerabilities in IE7 within a matter of days of
it being released. This the most secure IE ever! Erik even tried to
blame one of these on OE! Erik blaming a security vulnerability on
other MS SW! Windows, and all else MS produce for Windows, is simply
insecure by design.
It is not just the basic stupidity of no execution bit on files and
files being executable based on filename extension. It is far worse
than that. Windows is so complex because of lack of design with so
many inter-dependancies that maintaining the SW base is impossible.
Hence the problem MS has with just patching the system far less
producing new versions.
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