Microsoft patches new Windows flaw

TalkBack 11 of 35:

Next »

« Previous

• Thread View
• Flat View

Hmmmm, you sound like....

---Another embittered Linux users. Last time I checked Redhad(sic) had 50% more patches out for redhat than Microsoft had for all their current OS' combined. ---

You sound like another clueless MS shill. Since you are so brainwashed by MS into thinking every app is part of the OS you have taken your faulty logic and attempted to apply it to a Linux Distro.

The patches Red Hat offers covers literally thousands of separate products and applications, practically none written by Red Hat. Red Hat offers this as a convenience to their customers, the majority of which are simply improvements rather than critical updates. How many apps that run on MS does MS offer patches for as a convenience to their customers? Easy answer...none. Why? Well, for the last couple decades MS MO has been to 'partner' with anything innovative long enough to steal the source code and incorporate it into MS malware. Then MS uses their deep pockets to litigate the former 'partner' out of existence. Real respectable company, that MS

About your silly claim of more patches for Red Hat...Hmmm....I'll bet that when you add all the patches for all the apps that run on MS you will discover there is an order of magnitude more patches for MS. Of course, being another clueless MS shill you won't be capable of doing that. You can follow orders from your demi-god without reason or question, nothing more.

BTW, how many of those "Red Hat" patches also apply to apps that run on MS products? Betcha you forgot to count them as MS patches too, huh?

One final question. How many virus, trojan, and worm infestations have MS users had to suffer in the last two years? How many have Linux users had to suffer in the last two years? My Linux firewall shows an average of 250 attempted MS attacks on my Linux machine every day. I don't recall the last time I saw a Linux attack. Been quite a while. There is a major difference between a theoretical attack that requires physical access to my Linux box and an easily launched attack on an MS box that requires nothing more than browsing a web site or opening an e-mail. To get a virus on a Linux box the user has to work at it and put forth a major of effort, something usually beyond the capabilities of normal MS users. To get a virus on an MS box you simply have to use it for e-mail or web browsing.

Can't you MS shills tell dollar bill these same old FUD lines he's been using against Linux for the last 5 years are outdated by 5 years? How about something new or different? Oh, I forgot, we're talking about MS. They have never had anything new or different, only copies of everyone else's software.

MS shills make claims to the contrary. I suppose the truth is too distressing for them to handle. One of your favorite claims is the GUI used by *nix* systems is a copy of the MS windows GUI. Well, my Linux GUI is based on the X-Window System, a project that started in 1984. Whe did MS have it's first windows? Was MS even a company in 1984?

Your FUD is old, your outdated complaints are even older and you shills are about 5 years behind the times. Your latest FUD tactic of pretending to be a Linux user and complaining about problems that were fixed with Red Hat 4 fools nobody, with the possible exception of other MS shills. You blame Linux for all your malware, as though Linux users would waste their time with a kiddie script, with nothing to base it on other than you are afraid you may have to actually learn how to use a computer one day. Not only is denial a river in Egypt, it is a state of mind for MS shills What's even funnier than that, your demi-god blames you for all the malware that is so easily loaded on your MS box simply by reading e-mail and you folks simply grovel for dollar bill and take the abuse. Maybe MS is innovative. MS is the only company I am aware of that is able to easily convice it's users they are stupid in that the users are responsible for the low quality, easily cracked MS offerings that are routinely infested with malware. Definitely an 'innovative' idea.

All in all the ludicrious claims MS shills continue to make here are almost as entertaining as the ludicrious claims made by MS latest partner in corruption, newSCO. I've coined a new term for the partnership...MSCOrruption. Fitting.

Keep it up, boys, we need our daily laugh, you need to be able to blame someone else for your poor choice of software.

Posted by: Spam-ZD   Posted on: 05/12/04 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

• Virtualization: Architectural Considerations And Other Evaluation Criteria VMware Of the many approaches to x86 systems virtualization available in the ... Download Now
• Building the Virtualized Enterprise with VMware Infrastructure VMware VMware virtualization software has been adopted by over 120,000 enterprise ... Download Now
• Why Isn't Server Virtualization Saving Us More? A Few Small Changes May Dramatically Increase Your Efficiency VMware Companies have rapidly adopted server virtualization over the past few ... Download Now