Re: WMF vulnerability specifics
- From: roberson@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Walter Roberson)
- Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 17:52:54 GMT
In article <1JIzf.171520$tl.124737@pd7tw3no>,
Cool_X <cool_x_usenetSPAM@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>And anyone promoting this "Fedora" junk should realize that some people
>don't want to stop
>using something they know AND PAID FOR until they feel like they've
>gotten their MONEY'S WORTH
>out of their investment. Specifically, if you want me to use *nix so
>bad, then why don't you
>REIMBURSE ME for the retail cost of what I paid for Windoze and
>Office??? Your delusions of
>Linux "standardization and user friendliness" sicken me, especially when
>you CAN'T put your
>money where your mouth is, because you LOVE anything that's FREE!!!
If I were prepared to buy out the remaining value of your [used]
Windows and Office software, what mechanisms could we use to
establish that you had destroyed the software and all backups thereof?
And also, how can we establish that you will -stay- off of Windows
instead of just taking the payment and applying it against a new
version that you were planning to purchase anyhow?
Note: This is not a flame; this is a "I'm prepared to seriously
consider that, but how would we actually work it in practice?"
.
- References:
- WMF vulnerability specifics
- From: Todd H.
- Re: WMF vulnerability specifics
- From: Cool_X
- WMF vulnerability specifics
- Prev by Date: Re: WMF vulnerability specifics
- Next by Date: Network Security Analysis
- Previous by thread: Re: WMF vulnerability specifics
- Next by thread: Network Security Analysis
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
