* Book of Job peremptorily fired off this memo:
> Linonut <linonut@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
> news:i%AYj.25351$C8.8124@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
>
>> * Book of Job peremptorily fired off this memo:
>>
>>> Linonut <linonut@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
>>> news:iIyYj.25280$C8.8937@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
>>> I snipped what was unneccessary to prove Roy's quote false. Whether
>>> it's "sufficient" or only "gets that bottom layer" is irrelevant to
>>> the point I was trying to make. The point is that Roy misremembered
>>> (or down-right lied about) Schneier's statement to make it the exact
>>> *opposite* of what he actually said.
>>
>> Nope. Not opposite. Just incomplete (and, yes, misleading).
>
> I'm glad you're willing to come half way and admit that the statement is
> misleading, but that's giving Roy too much credit. Something cannot be
> "worthless"--one adjective used to define snakeoil--yet at the same time
> "work" and be "necessary".
>
> At this point, it seems clear that we will have to agree to disagree; all
> I can provide are quotes and definitions, and if those aren't enough then
> there's no point continuing this discussion.
Sure there is. Here's what you quoted from ROy:
Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:8789399.0XtOS087F8@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
*snip*
> Pay up or become part of the 320,000,000-PC zombies fleet. You'll
> probably become one either way because AV software is no longer
> effective (Schneier publicly calls it "snake oil" now).
Interesting how, for all the claims you make and links you provide,
you didn't provide anything to support *this* particular claim.
The reason? You are lying about what Schneier said. Indeed, he said
just the opposite: ...
Here's what the article title says:
Schneier: Lots of Security Software Is 'snake Oil'
Going by the title alone, I would say that Roy is /not/ saying just the
opposite, wouldn't you?
Of course, if you read the article, you then see where Schneier leaves
anti-virus software out of that claim.
So now, at least to me, Roy looks merely careless, not an out-and-out
liar.
--
I laid out memory so the bottom 640K was general purpose RAM and the upper
384 I reserved for video and ROM, and things like that. That is why they
talk about the 640K limit. It is actually a limit, not of the software, in
any way, shape, or form, it is the limit of the microprocessor. That thing
generates addresses, 20-bits addresses, that only can address a megabyte of
memory. And, therefore, all the applications are tied to that limit. It was
ten times what we had before. But to my surprise, we ran out of that address
base for applications within... oh five or six years people were
complaining.
-- Bill Gates, Smithsonian Institution interview (1993)
|
|
