Sermo Malifer wrote:
> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>> Sermo Malifer wrote:
>>
>>> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>>> Sermo Malifer wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ____/ High Plains Thumper on Thursday 05 February 2009 13:55 :
>>>>>> \____
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Matt wrote:
>>>>>>>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>> Not to mention the fact that Windows does not have a centralised
>>>>>> patching mechanism. <snip>
>>>>> That's not a fact, it's an outright lie. Windows has automatic
>>>>> downloading and patching from a central store.
>>>> For the OS itself and a few selected MS apps.
>>> Yes.
>>
>> Ah, so we agree here
>>
>>>> Not even all MS apps are included.
>>> That's not true.
>>
>> Fine. Show us the link where *all* MS apps are included with "windows
>> update"
>
> I have no need to do so, for even if I'm wrong about that, it doesn't
> make Roy's statement "Not to mention the fact that Windows does not have
> a centralised patching mechanism" true.
Well, if just *one* MS app is not included Roy is right and you are wrong
>
>>>> *No* third party apps are included
>>> Even if that were true, it's dragging the goalposts from "Windows does
>>> not have a centralised patching mechanism."
>>
>> It is true.
>
> No it's not.
Fine. Show us the "MS update central" which will update all MS apps on
windows
>
>> And please show us where only MS apps (and only a select
>> subset of those) are eligible for "universal patching"
>> Since about everyone has apps from different vendors installed (on a
>> typical windows install), they would benefit greatly from a
>> "centralised patching mechanism". Yet that does not exist at all. It
>> exists only for a subset of MS apps
>
> You contradict yourself above. It can not both "not exist at all," and
> also exist "only for a subset of MS apps."
If it exists only for a "subset of MS apps" it is not a "universal MS
update service"
>>>> So yes, it is a fact.
>>> No, that's a lie told to cover Roy's lie.
>>
>> You have shown nothing so far to substantiate your claim
>
> This post and this thread prove you wrong.
Poor flatfish
>>>>> Your hatred of Windows, Microsoft, and Bill Gates is not a license
>>>>> to lie about them.
>>>> He didn't
>>> Yes he did, and it's easily verified that both you and he are wrong.
>>
>> Good. Since it is "easily verified " you will now supply the links,
>> right? Riiiight?
>
> You have only to read this post and this thread. You've done all
> that's needed to prove both of you liars.
And you have failed to provide even *one* link to substantiate your
claims.
Why might that be, flatfish?
--
It's sweet to be remembered, but it's often cheaper to be forgotten.
|
|