Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

Re: [News] Another Example of Ignorant Journalists Covering Linux


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.



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index