FireFox is a security mess

  • Thread starter Thread starter Saucy
  • Start date Start date
Alias wrote:

> Frank wrote:
>
>> Alias wrote:
>>
>>> Frank wrote:
>>>
>>>> Alias wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> For viruses hitting Hasta la Vista, Baby, read this newsgroup.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> BULLSH*T!!!
>>>> You're just a fukkin lying linux loser!!!
>>>> No more of your incessant lies dick head!
>>>> Frank
>>>>
>>>
>>> Don't have a stroke, Frank.
>>>
>>
>> Don't lie you as*hole jerk!
>> No more lying, ok?
>> Frank
>
>
> You're the liar. Here's proof that Ubuntu 7.04 has NO vulnerabilities:
>
> Provided by Kevin:
>
> If You Look At The Current U.S.A. Government's Software Vulnerability
> List At http://www.uscert.gov, There Is Only 1 Active Vulnerability For
> The Linux Kernel And None For The Ubuntu 7.04 Software, Just FYI.
>
> Hasta la Vista, virus prone big time.
>
> Ubuntu Feisty Fawn, not virus prone.
>
> Now stick that in your pipe and smoke it.
>
More lies and distortions?
NO MORE LIES!
Got it!
Frank
 
Frank wrote:
> Alias wrote:
>
>> Frank wrote:
>>
>>> Alias wrote:
>>>
>>>> Frank wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Alias wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> For viruses hitting Hasta la Vista, Baby, read this newsgroup.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> BULLSH*T!!!
>>>>> You're just a fukkin lying linux loser!!!
>>>>> No more of your incessant lies dick head!
>>>>> Frank
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Don't have a stroke, Frank.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Don't lie you as*hole jerk!
>>> No more lying, ok?
>>> Frank
>>
>>
>> You're the liar. Here's proof that Ubuntu 7.04 has NO vulnerabilities:
>>
>> Provided by Kevin:
>>
>> If You Look At The Current U.S.A. Government's Software Vulnerability
>> List At http://www.uscert.gov, There Is Only 1 Active Vulnerability
>> For The Linux Kernel And None For The Ubuntu 7.04 Software, Just FYI.
>>
>> Hasta la Vista, virus prone big time.
>>
>> Ubuntu Feisty Fawn, not virus prone.
>>
>> Now stick that in your pipe and smoke it.
>>
> Got it!
> Frank

It's about time.

--
Alias
To email me, remove shoes
 
"Alias" <iamalias@shoesgmail.com.> wrote in message
news:e5J6wTO1HHA.5360@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Saucy wrote:
>> "Alias" <iamalias@gmail.com.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:eBvfoMJ1HHA.600@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>> Marco Desloovere wrote:
>>>> < chop >
>>>> Can you show any credible *objective* sources with detailed results to
>>>> substantiate your claims?
>>>>
>>>
>>> For viruses hitting Hasta la Vista, Baby, read this newsgroup. For proof
>>> on Ubuntu, install it, visit dodgy sites, click on everything that looks
>>> like you shouldn't and then do a virus scan and judge for yourself.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Alias
>>
>>
>> In other words, no.
>
> Not for people who lack reading comprehension skills like you. The above
> is an objective test.
>
> --
> Alias
>


Oh for crying out loud get a clue.
 
Saucy wrote:
> "Alias" <iamalias@shoesgmail.com.> wrote in message
> news:e5J6wTO1HHA.5360@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> Saucy wrote:
>>> "Alias" <iamalias@gmail.com.invalid> wrote in message
>>> news:eBvfoMJ1HHA.600@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>> Marco Desloovere wrote:
>>>>> < chop >
>>>>> Can you show any credible *objective* sources with detailed results to
>>>>> substantiate your claims?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> For viruses hitting Hasta la Vista, Baby, read this newsgroup. For
>>>> proof on Ubuntu, install it, visit dodgy sites, click on everything
>>>> that looks like you shouldn't and then do a virus scan and judge for
>>>> yourself.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Alias
>>>
>>>
>>> In other words, no.
>>
>> Not for people who lack reading comprehension skills like you. The
>> above is an objective test.
>>
>> --
>> Alias
>>
>
>
> Oh for crying out loud get a clue.

My, my, another Wintard that can only hurl insults and not respond to
content. How quaint.

--
Alias
To email me, remove shoes
 
Alias [Thu, 02 Aug 2007 01:24:47 +0200] wrote:

>Marco Desloovere wrote:
>> Alias [Wed, 01 Aug 2007 20:47:29 +0200] wrote:
>>
>>> Well, people have posted that they've gotten viruses with Hasta La
>>> Vista, Baby right here in this very news group. For grins, I went round
>>> the Net looking for dodgy sites and clicked on any and everything. Then
>>> I ran AVClam and nada, zilch.
>>
>> Can you show any credible *objective* sources with detailed results to
>> substantiate your claims?
>>
>> Marco
>
>For viruses hitting Hasta la Vista, Baby, read this newsgroup.

Where is the objectivity?

>For proof
>on Ubuntu, install it, visit dodgy sites, click on everything that looks
>like you shouldn't and then do a virus scan and judge for yourself.

I do not believe that anybody can visit any Internet site with just an
operating system.

I therefore repeat my question: Can you show any credible *objective*
sources with detailed results to substantiate your claims?

Marco
 
Alias [Thu, 02 Aug 2007 11:10:14 +0200] wrote:

>Saucy wrote:
>> "Alias" <iamalias@gmail.com.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:eBvfoMJ1HHA.600@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>> Marco Desloovere wrote:
>>>> < chop >
>>>> Can you show any credible *objective* sources with detailed results to
>>>> substantiate your claims?
>>>>
>>>
>>> For viruses hitting Hasta la Vista, Baby, read this newsgroup. For
>>> proof on Ubuntu, install it, visit dodgy sites, click on everything
>>> that looks like you shouldn't and then do a virus scan and judge for
>>> yourself.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Alias
>>
>>
>> In other words, no.
>
>Not for people who lack reading comprehension skills like you. The above
>is an objective test.

Please explain how that "test" is objective?
Could you show your comprehensive detailed results, like browser (and
its version) used, Internet sites visited, security configuration, Java,
JavaScript, ActiveX or Cookies enabled/disabled, number of frames in a
page, cross-zone tests, HTML, XHTML or XML, SSL/TSL enabled/disabled,
valid/invalid certificates, Phishing filter, which malicious code was
tested and what were the problems encountered, ...?

Marco
 
Marco Desloovere wrote:
> Alias [Thu, 02 Aug 2007 11:10:14 +0200] wrote:
>
>> Saucy wrote:
>>> "Alias" <iamalias@gmail.com.invalid> wrote in message
>>> news:eBvfoMJ1HHA.600@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>> Marco Desloovere wrote:
>>>>> < chop >
>>>>> Can you show any credible *objective* sources with detailed results to
>>>>> substantiate your claims?
>>>>>
>>>> For viruses hitting Hasta la Vista, Baby, read this newsgroup. For
>>>> proof on Ubuntu, install it, visit dodgy sites, click on everything
>>>> that looks like you shouldn't and then do a virus scan and judge for
>>>> yourself.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Alias
>>>
>>> In other words, no.
>> Not for people who lack reading comprehension skills like you. The above
>> is an objective test.
>
> Please explain how that "test" is objective?
> Could you show your comprehensive detailed results, like browser (and
> its version) used, Internet sites visited, security configuration, Java,
> JavaScript, ActiveX or Cookies enabled/disabled, number of frames in a
> page, cross-zone tests, HTML, XHTML or XML, SSL/TSL enabled/disabled,
> valid/invalid certificates, Phishing filter, which malicious code was
> tested and what were the problems encountered, ...?
>
> Marco

Yeah, I could do that but you can't afford my fees.

--
Alias
To email me, remove shoes
 
Marco Desloovere wrote:
> Alias [Thu, 02 Aug 2007 01:24:47 +0200] wrote:
>
>> Marco Desloovere wrote:
>>> Alias [Wed, 01 Aug 2007 20:47:29 +0200] wrote:
>>>
>>>> Well, people have posted that they've gotten viruses with Hasta La
>>>> Vista, Baby right here in this very news group. For grins, I went round
>>>> the Net looking for dodgy sites and clicked on any and everything. Then
>>>> I ran AVClam and nada, zilch.
>>> Can you show any credible *objective* sources with detailed results to
>>> substantiate your claims?
>>>
>>> Marco
>> For viruses hitting Hasta la Vista, Baby, read this newsgroup.
>
> Where is the objectivity?
>
>> For proof
>> on Ubuntu, install it, visit dodgy sites, click on everything that looks
>> like you shouldn't and then do a virus scan and judge for yourself.
>
> I do not believe that anybody can visit any Internet site with just an
> operating system.

Firefox comes preinstalled with Ubuntu.

>
> I therefore repeat my question: Can you show any credible *objective*
> sources with detailed results to substantiate your claims?
>
> Marco

Yeah, see above.
--
Alias
To email me, remove shoes
 
"Alias" <iamalias@shoesgmail.com.> wrote in message
news:u9NULmV1HHA.3940@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Marco Desloovere wrote:
>> Alias [Thu, 02 Aug 2007 11:10:14 +0200] wrote:
>>
>>> Saucy wrote:
>>>> "Alias" <iamalias@gmail.com.invalid> wrote in message
>>>> news:eBvfoMJ1HHA.600@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>>> Marco Desloovere wrote:
>>>>>> < chop >
>>>>>> Can you show any credible *objective* sources with detailed results
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> substantiate your claims?
>>>>>>
>>>>> For viruses hitting Hasta la Vista, Baby, read this newsgroup. For
>>>>> proof on Ubuntu, install it, visit dodgy sites, click on everything
>>>>> that looks like you shouldn't and then do a virus scan and judge for
>>>>> yourself.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Alias
>>>>
>>>> In other words, no.
>>> Not for people who lack reading comprehension skills like you. The above
>>> is an objective test.
>>
>> Please explain how that "test" is objective?
>> Could you show your comprehensive detailed results, like browser (and
>> its version) used, Internet sites visited, security configuration, Java,
>> JavaScript, ActiveX or Cookies enabled/disabled, number of frames in a
>> page, cross-zone tests, HTML, XHTML or XML, SSL/TSL enabled/disabled,
>> valid/invalid certificates, Phishing filter, which malicious code was
>> tested and what were the problems encountered, ...?
>>
>> Marco
>
> Yeah, I could do that but you can't afford my fees.
>
> --
> Alias
> To email me, remove shoes


In other words, no.
 
Saucy wrote:
> "Alias" <iamalias@shoesgmail.com.> wrote in message
> news:u9NULmV1HHA.3940@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> Marco Desloovere wrote:
>>> Alias [Thu, 02 Aug 2007 11:10:14 +0200] wrote:
>>>
>>>> Saucy wrote:
>>>>> "Alias" <iamalias@gmail.com.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>> news:eBvfoMJ1HHA.600@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>>>> Marco Desloovere wrote:
>>>>>>> < chop >
>>>>>>> Can you show any credible *objective* sources with detailed
>>>>>>> results to
>>>>>>> substantiate your claims?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> For viruses hitting Hasta la Vista, Baby, read this newsgroup. For
>>>>>> proof on Ubuntu, install it, visit dodgy sites, click on
>>>>>> everything that looks like you shouldn't and then do a virus scan
>>>>>> and judge for yourself.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Alias
>>>>>
>>>>> In other words, no.
>>>> Not for people who lack reading comprehension skills like you. The
>>>> above is an objective test.
>>>
>>> Please explain how that "test" is objective?
>>> Could you show your comprehensive detailed results, like browser (and
>>> its version) used, Internet sites visited, security configuration, Java,
>>> JavaScript, ActiveX or Cookies enabled/disabled, number of frames in a
>>> page, cross-zone tests, HTML, XHTML or XML, SSL/TSL enabled/disabled,
>>> valid/invalid certificates, Phishing filter, which malicious code was
>>> tested and what were the problems encountered, ...?
>>>
>>> Marco
>>
>> Yeah, I could do that but you can't afford my fees.
>>
>> --
>> Alias
>> To email me, remove shoes
>
>
> In other words, no.

In other words, that's a lot of work and I charge to do a lot of work.
The fact that I spent a couple of hours visiting dodgy sites, clicking
on everything that looked evil, and got no blue meanies with Ubuntu
should be objective enough.

--
Alias
To email me, remove shoes
 
Alias [Fri, 03 Aug 2007 01:04:54 +0200] wrote:

>Marco Desloovere wrote:
>> Alias [Thu, 02 Aug 2007 11:10:14 +0200] wrote:
>>
>>> Saucy wrote:
>>>> "Alias" <iamalias@gmail.com.invalid> wrote in message
>>>> news:eBvfoMJ1HHA.600@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>>> Marco Desloovere wrote:
>>>>>> < chop >
>>>>>> Can you show any credible *objective* sources with detailed results to
>>>>>> substantiate your claims?
>>>>>>
>>>>> For viruses hitting Hasta la Vista, Baby, read this newsgroup. For
>>>>> proof on Ubuntu, install it, visit dodgy sites, click on everything
>>>>> that looks like you shouldn't and then do a virus scan and judge for
>>>>> yourself.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Alias
>>>>
>>>> In other words, no.
>>> Not for people who lack reading comprehension skills like you. The above
>>> is an objective test.
>>
>> Please explain how that "test" is objective?
>> Could you show your comprehensive detailed results, like browser (and
>> its version) used, Internet sites visited, security configuration, Java,
>> JavaScript, ActiveX or Cookies enabled/disabled, number of frames in a
>> page, cross-zone tests, HTML, XHTML or XML, SSL/TSL enabled/disabled,
>> valid/invalid certificates, Phishing filter, which malicious code was
>> tested and what were the problems encountered, ...?
>>
>> Marco
>
>Yeah, I could do that

The truth is that you lack comprehension skills to even understand one
word in that list of test items above.

>but you can't afford my fees.

So who is paying you now to continously advertise an operating system
that only a couple of misguided nerds with sticky fingers care about?

Marco
 
Alias [Fri, 03 Aug 2007 01:06:05 +0200] wrote:

>Marco Desloovere wrote:
>> Alias [Thu, 02 Aug 2007 01:24:47 +0200] wrote:
>>
>>> Marco Desloovere wrote:
>>>> Alias [Wed, 01 Aug 2007 20:47:29 +0200] wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Well, people have posted that they've gotten viruses with Hasta La
>>>>> Vista, Baby right here in this very news group. For grins, I went round
>>>>> the Net looking for dodgy sites and clicked on any and everything. Then
>>>>> I ran AVClam and nada, zilch.
>>>> Can you show any credible *objective* sources with detailed results to
>>>> substantiate your claims?
>>>>
>>>> Marco
>>> For viruses hitting Hasta la Vista, Baby, read this newsgroup.
>>
>> Where is the objectivity?
>>
>>> For proof
>>> on Ubuntu, install it, visit dodgy sites, click on everything that looks
>>> like you shouldn't and then do a virus scan and judge for yourself.
>>
>> I do not believe that anybody can visit any Internet site with just an
>> operating system.
>
>Firefox comes preinstalled with Ubuntu.

Firefox is not an operating system.
Haven't you noticed yet?

>> I therefore repeat my question: Can you show any credible *objective*
>> sources with detailed results to substantiate your claims?
>>
>> Marco
>
>Yeah, see above.

In other words, you are incapable to supply any credible *objective*
sources with detailed results to substantiate your claims.
Quod erat demonstrandum.

Marco
 
Alias [Fri, 03 Aug 2007 11:37:42 +0200] wrote:

>Saucy wrote:
>> "Alias" <iamalias@shoesgmail.com.> wrote in message
>> news:u9NULmV1HHA.3940@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>> Marco Desloovere wrote:
>>>> Alias [Thu, 02 Aug 2007 11:10:14 +0200] wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Saucy wrote:
>>>>>> "Alias" <iamalias@gmail.com.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:eBvfoMJ1HHA.600@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>> Marco Desloovere wrote:
>>>>>>>> < chop >
>>>>>>>> Can you show any credible *objective* sources with detailed
>>>>>>>> results to
>>>>>>>> substantiate your claims?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For viruses hitting Hasta la Vista, Baby, read this newsgroup. For
>>>>>>> proof on Ubuntu, install it, visit dodgy sites, click on
>>>>>>> everything that looks like you shouldn't and then do a virus scan
>>>>>>> and judge for yourself.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Alias
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In other words, no.
>>>>> Not for people who lack reading comprehension skills like you. The
>>>>> above is an objective test.
>>>>
>>>> Please explain how that "test" is objective?
>>>> Could you show your comprehensive detailed results, like browser (and
>>>> its version) used, Internet sites visited, security configuration, Java,
>>>> JavaScript, ActiveX or Cookies enabled/disabled, number of frames in a
>>>> page, cross-zone tests, HTML, XHTML or XML, SSL/TSL enabled/disabled,
>>>> valid/invalid certificates, Phishing filter, which malicious code was
>>>> tested and what were the problems encountered, ...?
>>>>
>>>> Marco
>>>
>>> Yeah, I could do that but you can't afford my fees.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Alias
>>> To email me, remove shoes
>>
>>
>> In other words, no.
>
>In other words, that's a lot of work and I charge to do a lot of work.

That's the only way to get *objective* results - something you're
obviously not interested in or capable of.

>The fact that I spent a couple of hours visiting dodgy sites, clicking
>on everything that looked evil, and got no blue meanies with Ubuntu

You visited "dodgy sites" with Ubuntu?
How can an operating system visit any Internet sites?

>should be objective enough.

Nope, that's not even close to objective.
But why not show us at least those *subjective* results ... if you'd
dare.

Marco
 
Marco Desloovere wrote:
> Alias [Fri, 03 Aug 2007 01:04:54 +0200] wrote:
>
>> Marco Desloovere wrote:
>>> Alias [Thu, 02 Aug 2007 11:10:14 +0200] wrote:
>>>
>>>> Saucy wrote:
>>>>> "Alias" <iamalias@gmail.com.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>> news:eBvfoMJ1HHA.600@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>>>> Marco Desloovere wrote:
>>>>>>> < chop >
>>>>>>> Can you show any credible *objective* sources with detailed results to
>>>>>>> substantiate your claims?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> For viruses hitting Hasta la Vista, Baby, read this newsgroup. For
>>>>>> proof on Ubuntu, install it, visit dodgy sites, click on everything
>>>>>> that looks like you shouldn't and then do a virus scan and judge for
>>>>>> yourself.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Alias
>>>>> In other words, no.
>>>> Not for people who lack reading comprehension skills like you. The above
>>>> is an objective test.
>>> Please explain how that "test" is objective?
>>> Could you show your comprehensive detailed results, like browser (and
>>> its version) used, Internet sites visited, security configuration, Java,
>>> JavaScript, ActiveX or Cookies enabled/disabled, number of frames in a
>>> page, cross-zone tests, HTML, XHTML or XML, SSL/TSL enabled/disabled,
>>> valid/invalid certificates, Phishing filter, which malicious code was
>>> tested and what were the problems encountered, ...?
>>>
>>> Marco
>> Yeah, I could do that
>
> The truth is that you lack comprehension skills to even understand one
> word in that list of test items above.

False. I understand each and every one, your condescending attitude
notwithstanding.

>
>> but you can't afford my fees.
>
> So who is paying you now to continously advertise an operating system
> that only a couple of misguided nerds with sticky fingers care about?
>
> Marco

No one. I do that out of the goodness of my heart.


--
Alias
To email me, remove shoes
 
Marco Desloovere wrote:
> Alias [Fri, 03 Aug 2007 11:37:42 +0200] wrote:
>
>> Saucy wrote:
>>> "Alias" <iamalias@shoesgmail.com.> wrote in message
>>> news:u9NULmV1HHA.3940@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>> Marco Desloovere wrote:
>>>>> Alias [Thu, 02 Aug 2007 11:10:14 +0200] wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Saucy wrote:
>>>>>>> "Alias" <iamalias@gmail.com.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:eBvfoMJ1HHA.600@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>>> Marco Desloovere wrote:
>>>>>>>>> < chop >
>>>>>>>>> Can you show any credible *objective* sources with detailed
>>>>>>>>> results to
>>>>>>>>> substantiate your claims?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For viruses hitting Hasta la Vista, Baby, read this newsgroup. For
>>>>>>>> proof on Ubuntu, install it, visit dodgy sites, click on
>>>>>>>> everything that looks like you shouldn't and then do a virus scan
>>>>>>>> and judge for yourself.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Alias
>>>>>>> In other words, no.
>>>>>> Not for people who lack reading comprehension skills like you. The
>>>>>> above is an objective test.
>>>>> Please explain how that "test" is objective?
>>>>> Could you show your comprehensive detailed results, like browser (and
>>>>> its version) used, Internet sites visited, security configuration, Java,
>>>>> JavaScript, ActiveX or Cookies enabled/disabled, number of frames in a
>>>>> page, cross-zone tests, HTML, XHTML or XML, SSL/TSL enabled/disabled,
>>>>> valid/invalid certificates, Phishing filter, which malicious code was
>>>>> tested and what were the problems encountered, ...?
>>>>>
>>>>> Marco
>>>> Yeah, I could do that but you can't afford my fees.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Alias
>>>> To email me, remove shoes
>>>
>>> In other words, no.
>> In other words, that's a lot of work and I charge to do a lot of work.
>
> That's the only way to get *objective* results - something you're
> obviously not interested in or capable of.

Test: Visit dodgy sites using Firefox while running Ubuntu. No meanies.
Not subjective but objective.

>
>> The fact that I spent a couple of hours visiting dodgy sites, clicking
>> on everything that looked evil, and got no blue meanies with Ubuntu
>
> You visited "dodgy sites" with Ubuntu?
> How can an operating system visit any Internet sites?

Ubuntu comes with Firefox preinstalled is how, of course.

>> should be objective enough.
>
> Nope, that's not even close to objective.
> But why not show us at least those *subjective* results ... if you'd
> dare.
>
> Marco

If you're really interested, which I highly doubt, do your own test.
Ubuntu is free and I assume you already have Hasta la Vista, Baby installed.

--
Alias
To email me, remove shoes
 
Alias [Fri, 03 Aug 2007 14:44:19 +0200] wrote:

>Marco Desloovere wrote:
>> Alias [Fri, 03 Aug 2007 01:04:54 +0200] wrote:
>>
>>> Marco Desloovere wrote:
>>>> Alias [Thu, 02 Aug 2007 11:10:14 +0200] wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Saucy wrote:
>>>>>> "Alias" <iamalias@gmail.com.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:eBvfoMJ1HHA.600@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>> Marco Desloovere wrote:
>>>>>>>> < chop >
>>>>>>>> Can you show any credible *objective* sources with detailed results to
>>>>>>>> substantiate your claims?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For viruses hitting Hasta la Vista, Baby, read this newsgroup. For
>>>>>>> proof on Ubuntu, install it, visit dodgy sites, click on everything
>>>>>>> that looks like you shouldn't and then do a virus scan and judge for
>>>>>>> yourself.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Alias
>>>>>> In other words, no.
>>>>> Not for people who lack reading comprehension skills like you. The above
>>>>> is an objective test.
>>>> Please explain how that "test" is objective?
>>>> Could you show your comprehensive detailed results, like browser (and
>>>> its version) used, Internet sites visited, security configuration, Java,
>>>> JavaScript, ActiveX or Cookies enabled/disabled, number of frames in a
>>>> page, cross-zone tests, HTML, XHTML or XML, SSL/TSL enabled/disabled,
>>>> valid/invalid certificates, Phishing filter, which malicious code was
>>>> tested and what were the problems encountered, ...?
>>>>
>>>> Marco
>>> Yeah, I could do that
>>
>> The truth is that you lack comprehension skills to even understand one
>> word in that list of test items above.
>
>False. I understand each and every one,

The proof of which you will of course be unable to deliver.

>your condescending attitude
>notwithstanding.

You keep advertising the same childish service over and over again,
bragging about the so-called safety of a certain OS, and making
extremely condescending remarks about an OS, which is perfectly on topic
in this newsgroup, when in fact you have simply been "testing" the
safety of Firefox, which is *not* an operating system.

>>> but you can't afford my fees.
>>
>> So who is paying you now to continously advertise an operating system
>> that only a couple of misguided nerds with sticky fingers care about?
>>
>> Marco
>
>No one. I do that out of the goodness of my heart.

Doing what?

Marco
 
Alias [Fri, 03 Aug 2007 14:47:14 +0200] wrote:

>Marco Desloovere wrote:
>> Alias [Fri, 03 Aug 2007 11:37:42 +0200] wrote:
>>
>>> Saucy wrote:
>>>> "Alias" <iamalias@shoesgmail.com.> wrote in message
>>>> news:u9NULmV1HHA.3940@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>>> Marco Desloovere wrote:
>>>>>> Alias [Thu, 02 Aug 2007 11:10:14 +0200] wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Saucy wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Alias" <iamalias@gmail.com.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:eBvfoMJ1HHA.600@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>>>> Marco Desloovere wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> < chop >
>>>>>>>>>> Can you show any credible *objective* sources with detailed
>>>>>>>>>> results to
>>>>>>>>>> substantiate your claims?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> For viruses hitting Hasta la Vista, Baby, read this newsgroup. For
>>>>>>>>> proof on Ubuntu, install it, visit dodgy sites, click on
>>>>>>>>> everything that looks like you shouldn't and then do a virus scan
>>>>>>>>> and judge for yourself.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Alias
>>>>>>>> In other words, no.
>>>>>>> Not for people who lack reading comprehension skills like you. The
>>>>>>> above is an objective test.
>>>>>> Please explain how that "test" is objective?
>>>>>> Could you show your comprehensive detailed results, like browser (and
>>>>>> its version) used, Internet sites visited, security configuration, Java,
>>>>>> JavaScript, ActiveX or Cookies enabled/disabled, number of frames in a
>>>>>> page, cross-zone tests, HTML, XHTML or XML, SSL/TSL enabled/disabled,
>>>>>> valid/invalid certificates, Phishing filter, which malicious code was
>>>>>> tested and what were the problems encountered, ...?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Marco
>>>>> Yeah, I could do that but you can't afford my fees.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Alias
>>>>> To email me, remove shoes
>>>>
>>>> In other words, no.
>>> In other words, that's a lot of work and I charge to do a lot of work.
>>
>> That's the only way to get *objective* results - something you're
>> obviously not interested in or capable of.
>
>Test: Visit dodgy sites using Firefox while running Ubuntu. No meanies.
>Not subjective but objective.

I already wrote this many times before: Firefox is not an operating
system. Therefore, your "test" has nothing whatsoever to do with the
safety of any OS.

>>> The fact that I spent a couple of hours visiting dodgy sites, clicking
>>> on everything that looked evil, and got no blue meanies with Ubuntu
>>
>> You visited "dodgy sites" with Ubuntu?
>> How can an operating system visit any Internet sites?
>
>Ubuntu comes with Firefox preinstalled is how, of course.

Your point being?

>>> should be objective enough.
>>
>> Nope, that's not even close to objective.
>> But why not show us at least those *subjective* results ... if you'd
>> dare.
>>
>> Marco
>
>If you're really interested, which I highly doubt, do your own test.

I do not own a well equipped lab to do any *objective* testing.

>Ubuntu is free and I assume you already have Hasta la Vista, Baby installed.

No, my PC came pre-installed with Microsoft Windows Vista Home Premium.

Marco
 
Marco Desloovere wrote:
> Alias [Fri, 03 Aug 2007 14:47:14 +0200] wrote:
>
>> Marco Desloovere wrote:
>>> Alias [Fri, 03 Aug 2007 11:37:42 +0200] wrote:
>>>
>>>> Saucy wrote:
>>>>> "Alias" <iamalias@shoesgmail.com.> wrote in message
>>>>> news:u9NULmV1HHA.3940@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>>>> Marco Desloovere wrote:
>>>>>>> Alias [Thu, 02 Aug 2007 11:10:14 +0200] wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Saucy wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Alias" <iamalias@gmail.com.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:eBvfoMJ1HHA.600@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>>>>> Marco Desloovere wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> < chop >
>>>>>>>>>>> Can you show any credible *objective* sources with detailed
>>>>>>>>>>> results to
>>>>>>>>>>> substantiate your claims?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> For viruses hitting Hasta la Vista, Baby, read this newsgroup. For
>>>>>>>>>> proof on Ubuntu, install it, visit dodgy sites, click on
>>>>>>>>>> everything that looks like you shouldn't and then do a virus scan
>>>>>>>>>> and judge for yourself.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> Alias
>>>>>>>>> In other words, no.
>>>>>>>> Not for people who lack reading comprehension skills like you. The
>>>>>>>> above is an objective test.
>>>>>>> Please explain how that "test" is objective?
>>>>>>> Could you show your comprehensive detailed results, like browser (and
>>>>>>> its version) used, Internet sites visited, security configuration, Java,
>>>>>>> JavaScript, ActiveX or Cookies enabled/disabled, number of frames in a
>>>>>>> page, cross-zone tests, HTML, XHTML or XML, SSL/TSL enabled/disabled,
>>>>>>> valid/invalid certificates, Phishing filter, which malicious code was
>>>>>>> tested and what were the problems encountered, ...?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Marco
>>>>>> Yeah, I could do that but you can't afford my fees.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Alias
>>>>>> To email me, remove shoes
>>>>> In other words, no.
>>>> In other words, that's a lot of work and I charge to do a lot of work.
>>> That's the only way to get *objective* results - something you're
>>> obviously not interested in or capable of.
>> Test: Visit dodgy sites using Firefox while running Ubuntu. No meanies.
>> Not subjective but objective.
>
> I already wrote this many times before: Firefox is not an operating
> system. Therefore, your "test" has nothing whatsoever to do with the
> safety of any OS.

I know that. Firefox is an Internet Browser. I used it in Ubuntu. What
is so difficult about that?

>
>>>> The fact that I spent a couple of hours visiting dodgy sites, clicking
>>>> on everything that looked evil, and got no blue meanies with Ubuntu
>>> You visited "dodgy sites" with Ubuntu?
>>> How can an operating system visit any Internet sites?
>> Ubuntu comes with Firefox preinstalled is how, of course.
>
> Your point being?

Sigh.

>
>>>> should be objective enough.
>>> Nope, that's not even close to objective.
>>> But why not show us at least those *subjective* results ... if you'd
>>> dare.
>>>
>>> Marco
>> If you're really interested, which I highly doubt, do your own test.
>
> I do not own a well equipped lab to do any *objective* testing.

LOL! You're hopeless.

>
>> Ubuntu is free and I assume you already have Hasta la Vista, Baby installed.
>
> No, my PC came pre-installed with Microsoft Windows Vista Home Premium.
>
> Marco

Figures.

--
Alias
To email me, remove shoes
 
Marco Desloovere wrote:
> Alias [Fri, 03 Aug 2007 14:44:19 +0200] wrote:
>
>> Marco Desloovere wrote:
>>> Alias [Fri, 03 Aug 2007 01:04:54 +0200] wrote:
>>>
>>>> Marco Desloovere wrote:
>>>>> Alias [Thu, 02 Aug 2007 11:10:14 +0200] wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Saucy wrote:
>>>>>>> "Alias" <iamalias@gmail.com.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:eBvfoMJ1HHA.600@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>>> Marco Desloovere wrote:
>>>>>>>>> < chop >
>>>>>>>>> Can you show any credible *objective* sources with detailed results to
>>>>>>>>> substantiate your claims?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For viruses hitting Hasta la Vista, Baby, read this newsgroup. For
>>>>>>>> proof on Ubuntu, install it, visit dodgy sites, click on everything
>>>>>>>> that looks like you shouldn't and then do a virus scan and judge for
>>>>>>>> yourself.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Alias
>>>>>>> In other words, no.
>>>>>> Not for people who lack reading comprehension skills like you. The above
>>>>>> is an objective test.
>>>>> Please explain how that "test" is objective?
>>>>> Could you show your comprehensive detailed results, like browser (and
>>>>> its version) used, Internet sites visited, security configuration, Java,
>>>>> JavaScript, ActiveX or Cookies enabled/disabled, number of frames in a
>>>>> page, cross-zone tests, HTML, XHTML or XML, SSL/TSL enabled/disabled,
>>>>> valid/invalid certificates, Phishing filter, which malicious code was
>>>>> tested and what were the problems encountered, ...?
>>>>>
>>>>> Marco
>>>> Yeah, I could do that
>>> The truth is that you lack comprehension skills to even understand one
>>> word in that list of test items above.
>> False. I understand each and every one,
>
> The proof of which you will of course be unable to deliver.

No, no inclination.

>
>> your condescending attitude
>> notwithstanding.
>
> You keep advertising the same childish service over and over again,
> bragging about the so-called safety of a certain OS, and making
> extremely condescending remarks about an OS, which is perfectly on topic
> in this newsgroup, when in fact you have simply been "testing" the
> safety of Firefox, which is *not* an operating system.

Firefox running Ubuntu. If I were to do the same test with Firefox
running in Windows, I would be busy reinstalling Windows instead of
posting here.

>
>>>> but you can't afford my fees.
>>> So who is paying you now to continously advertise an operating system
>>> that only a couple of misguided nerds with sticky fingers care about?
>>>
>>> Marco
>> No one. I do that out of the goodness of my heart.
>
> Doing what?
>
> Marco

What you said, of course. Is English your first language?


--
Alias
To email me, remove shoes
 
Alias wrote:

> Marco Desloovere wrote:
>
>> Alias [Fri, 03 Aug 2007 14:47:14 +0200] wrote:
>>
>>> Marco Desloovere wrote:
>>>
>>>> Alias [Fri, 03 Aug 2007 11:37:42 +0200] wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Saucy wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Alias" <iamalias@shoesgmail.com.> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:u9NULmV1HHA.3940@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Marco Desloovere wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Alias [Thu, 02 Aug 2007 11:10:14 +0200] wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Saucy wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Alias" <iamalias@gmail.com.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> news:eBvfoMJ1HHA.600@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Marco Desloovere wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> < chop >
>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you show any credible *objective* sources with detailed
>>>>>>>>>>>> results to
>>>>>>>>>>>> substantiate your claims?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> For viruses hitting Hasta la Vista, Baby, read this
>>>>>>>>>>> newsgroup. For proof on Ubuntu, install it, visit dodgy
>>>>>>>>>>> sites, click on everything that looks like you shouldn't and
>>>>>>>>>>> then do a virus scan and judge for yourself.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>> Alias
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In other words, no.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Not for people who lack reading comprehension skills like you.
>>>>>>>>> The above is an objective test.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Please explain how that "test" is objective?
>>>>>>>> Could you show your comprehensive detailed results, like browser
>>>>>>>> (and
>>>>>>>> its version) used, Internet sites visited, security
>>>>>>>> configuration, Java,
>>>>>>>> JavaScript, ActiveX or Cookies enabled/disabled, number of
>>>>>>>> frames in a
>>>>>>>> page, cross-zone tests, HTML, XHTML or XML, SSL/TSL
>>>>>>>> enabled/disabled,
>>>>>>>> valid/invalid certificates, Phishing filter, which malicious
>>>>>>>> code was
>>>>>>>> tested and what were the problems encountered, ...?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Marco
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yeah, I could do that but you can't afford my fees.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Alias
>>>>>>> To email me, remove shoes
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In other words, no.
>>>>>
>>>>> In other words, that's a lot of work and I charge to do a lot of work.
>>>>
>>>> That's the only way to get *objective* results - something you're
>>>> obviously not interested in or capable of.
>>>
>>> Test: Visit dodgy sites using Firefox while running Ubuntu. No
>>> meanies. Not subjective but objective.
>>
>>
>> I already wrote this many times before: Firefox is not an operating
>> system. Therefore, your "test" has nothing whatsoever to do with the
>> safety of any OS.
>
>
> I know that. Firefox is an Internet Browser. I used it in Ubuntu. What
> is so difficult about that?
>
>>
>>>>> The fact that I spent a couple of hours visiting dodgy sites,
>>>>> clicking on everything that looked evil, and got no blue meanies
>>>>> with Ubuntu
>>>>
>>>> You visited "dodgy sites" with Ubuntu?
>>>> How can an operating system visit any Internet sites?
>>>
>>> Ubuntu comes with Firefox preinstalled is how, of course.
>>
>>
>> Your point being?
>
>
> Sigh.
>
>>
>>>>> should be objective enough.
>>>>
>>>> Nope, that's not even close to objective.
>>>> But why not show us at least those *subjective* results ... if you'd
>>>> dare.
>>>>
>>>> Marco
>>>
>>> If you're really interested, which I highly doubt, do your own test.
>>
>>
>> I do not own a well equipped lab to do any *objective* testing.
>
>
> LOL! You're hopeless.
>
>>
>>> Ubuntu is free and I assume you already have Hasta la Vista, Baby
>>> installed.
>>
>>
>> No, my PC came pre-installed with Microsoft Windows Vista Home Premium.
>>
>> Marco
>
>
> Figures.
>

The only thing that "figures" with you is that we all "figure" you're
gonna keep telling them lies!
Figures!
Frank
 

Similar threads

starbuck
Mozilla blocks Flash by default on Firefox browser
Replies
4
Views
737
allheart55 (Cindy E)
allheart55 (Cindy E)
allheart55 (Cindy E)
Windows 10 At One Year: A Look at Windows As A Service
Replies
0
Views
864
allheart55 (Cindy E)
allheart55 (Cindy E)
allheart55 (Cindy E)
The Worst Version of Windows Is…
Replies
4
Views
794
AWS
AWS
Back
Top