Hadron wrote:
> Chris Ahlstrom <ahlstromc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> After takin' a swig o' grog, Roy Schestowitz belched out
>> this bit o' wisdom:
>>
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>
>>> How To Argue That Open Source Software Is Secure?
>>>
>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>>| Lately there has been a huge push by Certified Microsoft
>>>| Professionals and their companies to call (potential) clients and
>>>| warn them of the dangers of open source. This week I received calls
>>>| from four different customers saying that they were warned that they
>>>| are dangerously insecure because they run open source operating
>>>| systems or software, because 'anyone can read the code and hack you
>>>| with ease.'
>>> `----
>>>
>>> http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/02/11/007216&from=rss
>>
>> They didn't save any attachments to the Gnome/KDE desktop <grin>.
>
> You do not feel the need to counter these ridiculous lies?
Feel free to provide proof that it were lies
> Surprise.
No surprise here at all. Except that it took you so long trying to defend
MS at all cost, "true linux advocate", "kernel hacker", "emacs user",
"swapfile expert", "X specialist", "CUPS guru", "USB-disk server admin",
"defragger professional", "newsreader magician", "hardware maven", "time
coordinator", "email sage", "tripwire wizard", "Pulseaudio rockstar" and
"OSS culling committee chairman" Hadron Quark, aka Hans Schneider, aka
Richard, aka Damian O'Leary, aka Steve Townsend, aka Ubuntu King
--
Microsoft is not the answer. Microsoft is the question. The answer is NO
|
|
