Prev: Random Hesitations: The new threat to windummy productivity inthe office
Next: UKFSN down
From: Moshe on 5 Apr 2010 11:06
On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 16:52:41 +0200, Hadron wrote:

> Moshe <goldee_loxnbagels(a)gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 14:06:02 GMT, Chris Whelan wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 13:57:28 +0000, 7 wrote:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>> So, switch to Linux before its too late and hire more Linux engineers to
>>>> fill in IT security positions.
>>>
>>> If you feel your role is to persuade others that Microsoft is bad, and
>>> Linux is good, why are you posting in Linux NG's?
>>>
>>> Chris
>>
>> Because they are the only ones foolish enough to take '7'
>> seriously. The current state of Linux advocacy is so poor that
>> they need every body they can get.
>>
>> He's well known in the Windows groups as a mentally ill crank.
>
> Chris Ahlstrom thinks he's an intelligent and valuable poster with a
> "zany outlook".
>
> Amazing isn't it?

They are desperate for pro Linux posts so they will accept the
bottom of the barrel.

Ever see them correct Rex?
Do they take exception with the lies Spamowitz posts?
How about Terry bedtime stories?
Marti's gross sexual trysts?


Of course not.
They don't want to be ostracized from the rest of the Linux Mafia.

It's all about seeding google with pro Linux material and it
doesn't matter how inaccurate or downright wrong the information
is.
They don't care.
They just want it to show up in the search engines.
From: Chris Whelan on 5 Apr 2010 13:21
On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 11:39:57 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

[...]

> Yes, you don't strike me as jocose.

I'm a pacifist, so it's pretty unlikely I'd strike you at all.

Chris

--
Remove prejudice to reply.
From: Moshe on 5 Apr 2010 17:59
On Mon, 5 Apr 2010 14:38:46 -0700 (PDT), Rex Ballard wrote:

> On Apr 5,> One of the biggest problems is that this means that Windows updates
> MUST be applied and cannot be backed-out unless Microsoft orders the
> back-out.

Do you make this stuff up as you go along Rex?

Microsoft updates do NOT need to be applied.
And yes they can be easily backed out if needed.
From: Bernard Peek on 6 Apr 2010 09:07
On 05/04/10 22:59, Moshe wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Apr 2010 14:38:46 -0700 (PDT), Rex Ballard wrote:
>
>> On Apr 5,> One of the biggest problems is that this means that Windows updates
>> MUST be applied and cannot be backed-out unless Microsoft orders the
>> back-out.
>
> Do you make this stuff up as you go along Rex?
>
> Microsoft updates do NOT need to be applied.
> And yes they can be easily backed out if needed.

Just to refine this answer a bit more. A system owner could be held
liable if there was a breach that resulted from a failure to patch the
OS if and only if they did this through negligence - for instance by not
installing any patches at all after having being informed that patches
are available. And most patches from MS can be uninstalled. There are a
few that can't. I believe that MS makes this type of patch optional.



--
Bernard Peek
bap(a)shrdlu.com
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2
Prev: Random Hesitations: The new threat to windummy productivity inthe office
Next: UKFSN down