__/ [ray] on Tuesday 11 October 2005 15:45 \__
> On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 15:16:44 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>> Now, is that not pathetic?
>> When something is so terribly wrong, you come up with an entirely new
>> product which is a merely patch to cover up for code spaghetti.
>> As I get past some offices, I see hours being spent on spyware scans and
>> sanitation. It's no smiling matter when you see people sob, often
>> requesting your help.
> I find it mildly amusing. I usually comment 'if you ran Linux, you
> wouldn't have that problem'.
It is not quite so amusing when you need to assist the victim. Moreover, you
can get told off (I never did) for slagging off Windows in a
Allow me to say more while the thoughts stir in my mind.
A secure and stable operating system should not be perceived as a Utopia. If
I can keep a Linux box and Palm handheld up for months, this implies that
Windows gives a discouraging illusion, thereby falsifying any reason to
trust an operating system and data integrity that it's liable for.
How /dare/ M$ change for what should be XP SP3? And how can they not be
guilty for delivering a faulty operating system 'out of the box'? Why need
I spend several hours patching up my mother's /fresh/ installation of
Windows (she insisted on using that garbage)?
The ironic thing is that Microsoft now have financial incentive when it
comes to software bugs. If they cleansed their O/S from bugs, they would
Roy S. Schestowitz | Useless fact: There are five regular polyhedra
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux | PGP-Key: 74572E8E
3:45pm up 47 days 3:59, 3 users, load average: 0.18, 0.18, 0.18