Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> __/ [ B Gruff ] on Wednesday 20 September 2006 15:32 \__
>
> > On Wednesday 20 September 2006 15:18 Larry Qualig wrote:
> >
> > This is actually quite interesting.....
> >
> >>>From Fool.com (Motley Fool)
> >>
> >> <quote>
> >> Microsoft's antitrust woes with the EU are old news by now, as is the
> >> EU's pigheaded, danged-if-you-do, danged-if-you-don't stance on
> >> non-issues such as uncoupling Windows Media Player from the OS. (Turned
> >> out no one wanted that stripped-down version of the OS over there, but
> >> why let facts get in the way of protectionist zeal?)
> >
> > - but is it, or is it not, a fact that in the anti-trust trial re. browsers
> > in the U.S., Microsoft stated, in court, under oath, that I.E. was so
> > deeply integrated into the OS that it could not be removed?
> > Is it, or is it not true, that only as a result of this case did MS finally
> > issue a patch to permit certain ICONS (shortcuts) to be removed?
> > In short, your author doesn't understand the point of the E.U. ruling.
> > It's not that people *want* the OS without the media player, it's that it
> > must be demonstrable that the media player can be removed (and therefore
> > another one used instead) without detriment to the OS.
> > Nobody is trying to "ban" a MS product, merely to ensure that competitors
> > are not excluded.
> >
> >> The Catch-22 for Microsoft is that security is a huge deal to
> >> consumers. And, truth be told, the beta versions of its latest security
> >> tools for Vista -- such as Windows Defender -- are much better
> >> integrated than the patchwork of third-party stuff that used to muck up
> >> my machine. But by creating more robust tools to better serve
> >> consumers' demand for security, Microsoft may run afoul of European
> >> regulators.
> >
> > Patchwork of third-party stuff, uh?
> > Tell me, until a few months ago, who/what exactly was protecting MS users
> > from 150,000+ known viruses?
> > The author presumably is in favour of MS driving all other vendors of
> > security S/W out of the market?
> >
> >> Alas, it's not the only double standard under which Mr. Softy is forced
> >> to labor. A few days ago, I noticed a story about a certain widely used
> >> Internet browser that, according to the source, contained "611 defects
> >> and 71 potential security vulnerabilities."
> >
> > It can't be the "not the only double standard", because it isn't a double
> > standard!
> > Be that as it may, I note that *now* Firfox has become *widely* *used* -
> > :-)
> >
> >> Should have been front-page news, right? Well, it wasn't, and I'm
> >> guessing the reason the press didn't pick up on it was that the browser
> >> was Firefox.
> >
> > But the author fails to mention how anybody knew how many "defects" and
> > *potential* security vulnerabilities there were in it?
> > My guess is that it was by automated analysis of the code?
> > Perhaps you, or the author, can tell us what the corresponding numbers are
> > for Internet Explorer - and if not, why not?
> >
> >> </quote>
> >>
> >> http://www.fool.com/news/mft/2006/mft06091210.htm
> >
> > Registration required, I see.
>
> Motley Fool gives a financial perspective. Don't sweat trying to knock some
> sense into Suits whose 'knowledge' is speculation over a glass of red wine.
As Oliver points out very well... you seem to have no problem posting
Motley Fool stories if they are anti-MS in nature. But suddenly Motley
Fool is "Suits whose 'knowledge' is speculation over a glass of red
wine."
How about dropping your lies, inconsistencies and hypocrisy and taking
a consistent position on something. (Example... "Easter eggs are evil
and a waste of time. Look how bloated they make MS-Office.
Discovery!!! OpenOffice also has Easter eggs. Suddenly they are a
delightful detraction for users.) Not to mention the blatant obvious
hypocrisy you just showed with regards to Motley Fool and our own
posting history.
Are you for real? If you take yourself seriously and believe the BS and
hypocrisy that you spew then you are well along the way the
express-route to the mental hospital. Even the most die-hard COLA/Linux
advocate can see how shallow and hypocritical you've become. Most
likely the result of spending countless hours making thousands of posts
to this little newsgroup.
> Also see:
>
> Praising Microsoft - and attacked by wolves
[Snip irrelevant garbage]
What in the world does this have to do with anything being discussed?
Looks like a rather pathetic attempt to change the subject.
> ComputerWorld Employs Ignorant Journalists
Except of course when you post anti-Microsoft [News] items from
ComputerWorld in which case the articles are magically brilliant and
insightful. Again... you've shown clear and demonstrable Hipocrisy.
(With a captial 'H')
> ,----[ Quote ]
[Snip - irrelevant lunacy rantings about ComputerWorld]
Once again... this is nothing more than a pathetic attempt to divert
the discussion to something completely unrelated.
>
http://linux-blog.org/index.php?/archives/165-ComputerWorld-Employs-Ignorant-Journalists.html#extended
Quite hypocritical and ironic wouldn't you say? ComputerWorld has
"ignorant journalists" and Motley Fool is "Suits whose 'knowledge' is
speculation over a glass of red wine. " but you consider some obscure
blog entry on "linux-blog.org" by some unknown nobody to be the gospel
truth.
Quite fascination.
- LQ
PS - Sorry if I was harsh but you're really starting to lose it IMO. It
is very unusual to see this level of inconsistency and hypocrisy coming
from one single individual.
|
|
