Re: Linux is as buggy as Windows

From: Kevin Buhr (buhr_at_telus.net)
Date: 10/02/03

  • Next message: Lord Shaolin: "Re: Responding to Spam" 
    Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2003 07:09:04 GMT

    Leythos <void@nowhere.com> writes:
    >
    > David, for those of us in the development world, we can not always apply
    > ALL service packs to all servers.

    That's absolutely ridiculous.

    I mean, we're all real impressed by your 3l33t c0mput3r skillz which
    have somehow made themselves known despite your best efforts to keep
    them humbly to yourself, but if you're going to pull your *** out in
    public---following up to a thread that is *clearly* concerned with
    maintaining a "user"'s typical desktop machine---with some irrelevant
    uptime statistics for industrial control systems (or other Windows
    boxes that live in the magical fairy land where they have no need for
    the two most important Windows security patches to come along in 2
    years), you'll have to excuse the rest of us for thinking you're an
    obnoxious idiot.

    I mean, if you don't need to apply those patches, you are clearly
    sufficiently protected by some other mechanisms (perhaps your enormous
    +5 iron-clad ego that deflects the attacks of mere mortals) that you
    don't need to worry about the patches the proles have to deal with.
    On the other hand, if that's the case, you really don't do yourself a
    service by lecturing people about how to maintain or configure an
    "Internet-safe" Windows installation by giving examples of uptimes for
    machines that are intentionally kept insecure.

    I, too, know how to keep a Windows machine absolutely secure with a
    potentially infinite uptime. It's called pulling the fscking power
    cord out of the wall. Do you have any better suggestions, or just a
    facility for exuding a sense of superiority?

    Looking forward to your reply with a loud PLONK, 

    -- 
Kevin <buhr@telus.net>
  • Next message: Lord Shaolin: "Re: Responding to Spam"
    Loading