Jackie wrote:

 

> On 5/13/2010 14:48, Alias wrote:

 

>> Nor do I. I use both Windows and Linux.

 

> Do you have anything to say about the other things I said? You quoted

 

> everything in my post.

 

 

 

I suspect that Windows is targeted because of various reasons. Windows

 

is easier to exploit and Windows users are usually less tech savvy than

 

Linux users. All they have to do is click on the wrong advertisement in

 

Facebook and they're hosed. The same wrong ad wouldn't affect Linux.

 

 

 

--

 

Alias

On 5/13/2010 15:30, Alias wrote:

 

> I suspect that Windows is targeted because of various reasons. Windows

 

> is easier to exploit and Windows users are usually less tech savvy than

 

> Linux users.

 

 

 

Certain features (not bugs) in Windows do allow an easier way to do

 

things with other running processes (resulting in easier way to exploit

 

vulnerabilities within them as well), while this is either disabled,

 

only partially supported, or not supported at all in Linux. This is

 

often because these programs are not coded well enough to protect

 

themselves. However, this requires the calling process to have the same

 

or higher access level as the target process.

 

 

 

In the case mentioned here, your statement about less tech savvy people

 

is very true, since they are more likely to click "Yes" without reading

 

or understanding the question and potential consequences, and simply

 

allow the program permission to do such a thing. This is more annoying

 

under Linux since you need to re-type your password every time (which

 

would be a good thing for these people, actually).

 

 

 

There should have been an option under Windows to use both: The UAC

 

prompt with simply "Yes" and "No", or prompt for the password again. The

 

first one for users like you and I, and the other for them (they are

 

less likely to bother exploring, or they will wonder why they need to do

 

this).

 

 

> All they have to do is click on the wrong advertisement in

 

> Facebook and they're hosed. The same wrong ad wouldn't affect Linux.

 

 

 

Now, I do not believe this is a problem with Windows itself but the

 

browser or plugins the user has installed in the browser. Internet

 

Explorer, for example, has a support for ActiveX controls and allows

 

scripts to communicate with them, which I would consider very dangerous.

 

There was also this issue earlier when people pressed F1 on the "right"

 

site (you can search for it). Such things should never have been

 

implemented into IE in the first place, and would never have been

 

exploitable.

"Lu Powell" wrote in

 

news:TeHGn.6329$HG1.647@newsfe21.iad:

 

 

>

 

> "Heywood Jablowme" wrote in message

 

> news:4beb0c74@news.x-privat.org...

 

>>

 

>>

 

>> wrote in message

 

>> news:hdkmu59pdkha3inpite9bgcsenrjtspvsu@4ax.com...

 

>>> Well after working with Vista II, otherwise known as

 

>>> Windows 7, for three months I can see that Microsoft is

 

>>> still incapable of producing a quality OS. So I need to

 

>>> look at some other system to switch to, likely one of the

 

>>> Linux distros.

 

>>>

 

>>> Bill - MN

 

>>> --

 

>>

 

>> So you can't figure out Windows 7? Windows 7 is much

 

>> better than Vista and is very stable. You are probably

 

>> incompetent and therefore you should migrate to Ubuntu.

 

>> Get with our resident Ubuntu idiot, Alias and he will help

 

>> you out.

 

>>

 

>> Don't let the screen door hit your ass on the way out.

 

>> LOL!

 

>>

 

>>

 

>>

 

>

 

> The original poster is Alias. Clever, eh?

 

 

 

How do you wrongly come to that conclusion ?

"Alias" wrote in message

 

news:hsgk1h$vib$2@news.eternal-september.org...

 

 

>

 

> Who cares?

 

>

 

> --

 

> Alias

 

 

 

Funny. That is what we think about YOUR posts! LOL!

"c_atiel" wrote in message

 

news:hsfpnq$mgu$1@speranza.aioe.org...

 

> You are so f****ng wrong.

 

> Windiws 7 is Vista SP3, not Vista II.

 

> How could anyone be so dum?

 

 

 

You must be extremely stupid. The word is DUMB, not DUM you MORON. Windows

 

7 is Windows 7 and not Vista SP3. Now shove your head back up your ass

 

where it belongs.

DanS wrote:

 

> "Lu Powell" wrote in

 

> news:TeHGn.6329$HG1.647@newsfe21.iad:

 

>

 

>>

 

>> "Heywood Jablowme" wrote in message

 

>> news:4beb0c74@news.x-privat.org...

 

>>>

 

>>>

 

>>> wrote in message

 

>>> news:hdkmu59pdkha3inpite9bgcsenrjtspvsu@4ax.com...

 

>>>> Well after working with Vista II, otherwise known as

 

>>>> Windows 7, for three months I can see that Microsoft is

 

>>>> still incapable of producing a quality OS. So I need to

 

>>>> look at some other system to switch to, likely one of the

 

>>>> Linux distros.

 

>>>>

 

>>>> Bill - MN

 

>>>> --

 

>>>

 

>>> So you can't figure out Windows 7? Windows 7 is much

 

>>> better than Vista and is very stable. You are probably

 

>>> incompetent and therefore you should migrate to Ubuntu.

 

>>> Get with our resident Ubuntu idiot, Alias and he will help

 

>>> you out.

 

>>>

 

>>> Don't let the screen door hit your ass on the way out.

 

>>> LOL!

 

>>>

 

>>>

 

>>>

 

>>

 

>> The original poster is Alias. Clever, eh?

 

>

 

> How do you wrongly come to that conclusion ?

 

 

 

Yeah, this should be good.

 

 

 

--

 

Alias

Heywood Jablowme wrote:

 

>

 

>

 

> "Alias" wrote in message

 

> news:hsgk1h$vib$2@news.eternal-september.org...

 

>

 

>>

 

>> Who cares?

 

>>

 

>> --

 

>> Alias

 

>

 

> Funny. That is what we think about YOUR posts! LOL!

 

 

 

No more for you, Nymshifter. You can join Frank. You're boring and very

 

tiresome.

 

 

 

--

 

Alias

Jackie wrote:

 

> On 5/13/2010 15:30, Alias wrote:

 

>> I suspect that Windows is targeted because of various reasons. Windows

 

>> is easier to exploit and Windows users are usually less tech savvy than

 

>> Linux users.

 

>

 

> Certain features (not bugs) in Windows do allow an easier way to do

 

> things with other running processes (resulting in easier way to exploit

 

> vulnerabilities within them as well), while this is either disabled,

 

> only partially supported, or not supported at all in Linux. This is

 

> often because these programs are not coded well enough to protect

 

> themselves. However, this requires the calling process to have the same

 

> or higher access level as the target process.

 

>

 

> In the case mentioned here, your statement about less tech savvy people

 

> is very true, since they are more likely to click "Yes" without reading

 

> or understanding the question and potential consequences, and simply

 

> allow the program permission to do such a thing. This is more annoying

 

> under Linux since you need to re-type your password every time (which

 

> would be a good thing for these people, actually).

 

>

 

> There should have been an option under Windows to use both: The UAC

 

> prompt with simply "Yes" and "No", or prompt for the password again. The

 

> first one for users like you and I, and the other for them (they are

 

> less likely to bother exploring, or they will wonder why they need to do

 

> this).

 

 

 

UAC is a lame imitation of what Linux does as aereo is a lame imitation

 

of Compiz. Now MS is trying to copy Google docs. They never come up with

 

anything original.

 

>

 

> > All they have to do is click on the wrong advertisement in

 

> > Facebook and they're hosed. The same wrong ad wouldn't affect Linux.

 

>

 

> Now, I do not believe this is a problem with Windows itself but the

 

> browser or plugins the user has installed in the browser. Internet

 

> Explorer, for example, has a support for ActiveX controls and allows

 

> scripts to communicate with them, which I would consider very dangerous.

 

> There was also this issue earlier when people pressed F1 on the "right"

 

> site (you can search for it). Such things should never have been

 

> implemented into IE in the first place, and would never have been

 

> exploitable.

 

 

 

It doesn't matter what browser you use. If you click on an ad laced with

 

malware, you're giving it permission to run. Now there is malware that

 

has developed the ability to fool ALL anti virus/malware apps and UAC.

 

Of course, you'll need Windows to benefit from this.

 

 

 

--

 

Alias

alias takes it up his ass!!!

 

On 5/13/2010 8:39 AM, Alias wrote:

 

> Heywood Jablowme wrote:

 

>>

 

>>

 

>> "Alias" wrote in message

 

>> news:hsgk1h$vib$2@news.eternal-september.org...

 

>>

 

>>>

 

>>> Who cares?

 

>>>

 

>>> --

 

>>> Alias

 

>>

 

>> Funny. That is what we think about YOUR posts! LOL!

 

>

 

> No more for you, Nymshifter. You can join Frank. You're boring and very

 

> tiresome.

 

>

 

I see you're still foaming at the mouth over the overwhelming success of

 

Windows 7.

 

As an aside, I just love watching you take it up your stupid, arrogant,

 

lying, linturd pimping ass. You are the designated whipping boy of this ng.

 

Oh, and its obvious you love it!...LOL!

On 5/13/2010 17:46, Alias wrote:

 

> UAC is a lame imitation of what Linux does as aereo is a lame imitation

 

> of Compiz. Now MS is trying to copy Google docs. They never come up with

 

> anything original.

 

 

 

So what if Linux has something similar implemented already? Are you

 

saying that MS should make something completely different that is likely

 

to be worse and harder to use? What is stupid is not doing something

 

*just because someone else did it already*.

 

 

> It doesn't matter what browser you use. If you click on an ad laced with

 

> malware, you're giving it permission to run. Now there is malware that

 

> has developed the ability to fool ALL anti virus/malware apps and UAC.

 

> Of course, you'll need Windows to benefit from this.

 

 

 

It would be nice if you could elaborate more with technical details.

 

 

 

It *does* matter, however, I believe defects in plugins such as Flash

 

and Silverlight are more responsible for a lot caused by these malicious

 

ads. These plugins have direct access to the system. If

 

Flash/Silverlight apps (ads) are able to cause damage, it's a defect in

 

the Flash/Silverlight plugin. If a regular script is able to cause

 

damage without using any plugins, it is a defect in the browser. None of

 

these are specific to Windows, but Windows *does* provide these features

 

I mentioned earlier (I did not name them), so they are of course also

 

available to the Flash and Silverlight plugins.

 

 

 

The operating system (any OS) can't automatically know what the

 

applications will do and can't decide to turn off features for it on its

 

own. It is unfortunate that the user has little control over what

 

applications are allowed to do and not do by default in Windows.

 

 

 

I use Outpost Firewall Pro 2009 (excellent firewall software, by the

 

way) that has an additional feature called "Host protection". This

 

feature provides a great amount of options to restrict applications from

 

lower-level features such as process memory injection, window

 

subclassing, process termination, driver loading, direct disk access,

 

low-level network access, + more. It is very unfortunate that we need a

 

separate application for this.

>>>> So you can't figure out Windows 7? Windows 7 is much

 

>>>> better than Vista and is very stable. You are probably

 

>>>> incompetent and therefore you should migrate to Ubuntu.

 

>>>> Get with our resident Ubuntu idiot, Alias and he will help

 

>>>> you out.

 

>>>>

 

>>>> Don't let the screen door hit your ass on the way out.

 

>>>> LOL!

 

>>>>

 

>>>>

 

>>>>

 

>>>

 

>>> The original poster is Alias. Clever, eh?

 

>>

 

>> How do you wrongly come to that conclusion ?

 

>

 

> Yeah, this should be good.

 

 

 

There will be no answer.

Jackie wrote:

 

> On 5/13/2010 17:46, Alias wrote:

 

>> UAC is a lame imitation of what Linux does as aereo is a lame imitation

 

>> of Compiz. Now MS is trying to copy Google docs. They never come up with

 

>> anything original.

 

>

 

> So what if Linux has something similar implemented already? Are you

 

> saying that MS should make something completely different that is likely

 

> to be worse and harder to use?

 

 

 

It is different and much easier to fuck up. Like I wrote, a lame

 

*imitation*.

 

 

 

 

> What is stupid is not doing something

 

> *just because someone else did it already*.

 

 

 

Never said it wasn't.

 

 

>

 

>> It doesn't matter what browser you use. If you click on an ad laced with

 

>> malware, you're giving it permission to run. Now there is malware that

 

>> has developed the ability to fool ALL anti virus/malware apps and UAC.

 

>> Of course, you'll need Windows to benefit from this.

 

>

 

> It would be nice if you could elaborate more with technical details.

 

 

 

http://www.h-online.com/security/news/item/New-attack-bypasses-anti-virus-software-997621.html

 

 

>

 

> It *does* matter, however, I believe defects in plugins such as Flash

 

> and Silverlight are more responsible for a lot caused by these malicious

 

> ads. These plugins have direct access to the system. If

 

> Flash/Silverlight apps (ads) are able to cause damage, it's a defect in

 

> the Flash/Silverlight plugin. If a regular script is able to cause

 

> damage without using any plugins, it is a defect in the browser. None of

 

> these are specific to Windows, but Windows *does* provide these features

 

> I mentioned earlier (I did not name them), so they are of course also

 

> available to the Flash and Silverlight plugins.

 

>

 

> The operating system (any OS) can't automatically know what the

 

> applications will do and can't decide to turn off features for it on its

 

> own. It is unfortunate that the user has little control over what

 

> applications are allowed to do and not do by default in Windows.

 

>

 

> I use Outpost Firewall Pro 2009 (excellent firewall software, by the

 

> way) that has an additional feature called "Host protection". This

 

> feature provides a great amount of options to restrict applications from

 

> lower-level features such as process memory injection, window

 

> subclassing, process termination, driver loading, direct disk access,

 

> low-level network access, + more. It is very unfortunate that we need a

 

> separate application for this.

 

 

 

You need a whole helluva lot more than that. Do you even have a NAT

 

firewall in your router?

 

 

 

--

 

Alias

On 5/13/2010 9:46 AM, Alias wrote:

 

> Jackie wrote:

 

>> On 5/13/2010 17:46, Alias wrote:

 

>>> UAC is a lame imitation of what Linux does as aereo is a lame imitation

 

>>> of Compiz. Now MS is trying to copy Google docs. They never come up with

 

>>> anything original.

 

>>

 

>> So what if Linux has something similar implemented already? Are you

 

>> saying that MS should make something completely different that is likely

 

>> to be worse and harder to use?

 

>

 

> It is different and much easier to fuck up.

 

 

 

Not with Vista/7.

 

 

 

Like I wrote, a lame

 

> *imitation*.

 

>

 

You are a known LIAR, LIAR!

 

>

 

>> What is stupid is not doing something

 

>> *just because someone else did it already*.

 

>

 

> Never said it wasn't.

 

 

 

But you never said it was.

 

>

 

>>

 

>>> It doesn't matter what browser you use. If you click on an ad laced with

 

>>> malware, you're giving it permission to run. Now there is malware that

 

>>> has developed the ability to fool ALL anti virus/malware apps and UAC.

 

>>> Of course, you'll need Windows to benefit from this.

 

>>

 

>> It would be nice if you could elaborate more with technical details.

 

>

 

> http://www.h-online.com/security/news/item/New-attack-bypasses-anti-virus-software-997621.html

 

 

 

Hey sheep-fucker...did you even bother reading that article? I guess not

 

because if you had you proly wont not have posted it.

 

 

>

 

>

 

>>

 

>> It *does* matter, however, I believe defects in plugins such as Flash

 

>> and Silverlight are more responsible for a lot caused by these malicious

 

>> ads. These plugins have direct access to the system. If

 

>> Flash/Silverlight apps (ads) are able to cause damage, it's a defect in

 

>> the Flash/Silverlight plugin. If a regular script is able to cause

 

>> damage without using any plugins, it is a defect in the browser. None of

 

>> these are specific to Windows, but Windows *does* provide these features

 

>> I mentioned earlier (I did not name them), so they are of course also

 

>> available to the Flash and Silverlight plugins.

 

>>

 

>> The operating system (any OS) can't automatically know what the

 

>> applications will do and can't decide to turn off features for it on its

 

>> own. It is unfortunate that the user has little control over what

 

>> applications are allowed to do and not do by default in Windows.

 

>>

 

>> I use Outpost Firewall Pro 2009 (excellent firewall software, by the

 

>> way) that has an additional feature called "Host protection". This

 

>> feature provides a great amount of options to restrict applications from

 

>> lower-level features such as process memory injection, window

 

>> subclassing, process termination, driver loading, direct disk access,

 

>> low-level network access, + more. It is very unfortunate that we need a

 

>> separate application for this.

 

>

 

> You need a whole helluva lot more than that. Do you even have a NAT

 

> firewall in your router?

 

 

 

*BULLSHIT*!!!

 

>

Alias:

 

 

>It is different and much easier to fuck up. Like I wrote, a lame

 

*imitation*.

 

 

 

So how do you suggest they do it instead? Instead of just saying it is

 

"lame", try to come up with something that would work better.

 

 

> Never said it wasn't.

 

By saying this, it implies that you do not want to be wrong, and feel

 

the need to let us know that you were not wrong.

 

 

>

 

http://www.h-online.com/security/news/item/New-attack-bypasses-anti-virus-software-997621.html

 

 

 

If your user account has UAC switched off and have full admin access,

 

this would have been an issue. It requires the application to be

 

elevated. It is only a real issue if the system is already penetrated

 

(meaning the user allowed this to happen). Even after penetration, it is

 

unlikely that such an attack would be successful because of the timing,

 

but this would indeed be even less likely on Linux (and even impossible

 

on some distros). This is because the lower-level feature allowing this

 

comes with more things to consider. This is not a bug, but it apparently

 

is not well enough protected and can be exploited. MS should maybe

 

provide APIs for greater integration with AV software.

 

 

> You need a whole helluva lot more than that. Do you even have a NAT

 

> firewall in your router?

 

>

 

 

 

No, I don't have a *hardware router* inside Windows 7.

Jackie wrote:

 

> Alias:

 

>

 

> >It is different and much easier to fuck up. Like I wrote, a lame

 

> *imitation*.

 

>

 

> So how do you suggest they do it instead? Instead of just saying it is

 

> "lame", try to come up with something that would work better.

 

>

 

> > Never said it wasn't.

 

> By saying this, it implies that you do not want to be wrong, and feel

 

> the need to let us know that you were not wrong.

 

>

 

> >

 

> http://www.h-online.com/security/news/item/New-attack-bypasses-anti-virus-software-997621.html

 

>

 

>

 

> If your user account has UAC switched off and have full admin access,

 

> this would have been an issue. It requires the application to be

 

> elevated. It is only a real issue if the system is already penetrated

 

> (meaning the user allowed this to happen). Even after penetration, it is

 

> unlikely that such an attack would be successful because of the timing,

 

> but this would indeed be even less likely on Linux (and even impossible

 

> on some distros). This is because the lower-level feature allowing this

 

> comes with more things to consider. This is not a bug, but it apparently

 

> is not well enough protected and can be exploited. MS should maybe

 

> provide APIs for greater integration with AV software.

 

>

 

>> You need a whole helluva lot more than that. Do you even have a NAT

 

>> firewall in your router?

 

>>

 

>

 

> No, I don't have a *hardware router* inside Windows 7.

 

 

 

I didn't say you should. You should have a router that comes with a NAT

 

firewall to protect your ports. It's a device, not a program.

 

 

 

--

 

Alias

On 05/13/2010 06:40 PM, DanS wrote:

 

>>>>> So you can't figure out Windows 7? Windows 7 is much

 

>>>>> better than Vista and is very stable. You are probably

 

>>>>> incompetent and therefore you should migrate to Ubuntu.

 

>>>>> Get with our resident Ubuntu idiot, Alias and he will help

 

>>>>> you out.

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>> Don't let the screen door hit your ass on the way out.

 

>>>>> LOL!

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>

 

>>>> The original poster is Alias. Clever, eh?

 

>>>

 

>>> How do you wrongly come to that conclusion ?

 

>>

 

>> Yeah, this should be good.

 

>

 

> There will be no answer.

 

>

 

 

 

You're probably right.

 

 

 

--

 

 

 

Alias

On 5/13/2010 19:42, Alias wrote:

 

> I didn't say you should. You should have a router that comes with a NAT

 

> firewall to protect your ports. It's a device, not a program.

 

>

 

 

 

Again, you quoted everything I said and only give me a very short reply,

 

completely unrelated to the important things.

 

 

 

No need to try and make me look like a fool. I am not asking for any

 

advices about this and I do not have a good reason to tell you whether I

 

have a NAT router between my home network and the outside. It is

 

completely unrelated to our discussion.

Jackie wrote:

 

> On 5/13/2010 19:42, Alias wrote:

 

>> I didn't say you should. You should have a router that comes with a NAT

 

>> firewall to protect your ports. It's a device, not a program.

 

>>

 

>

 

> Again, you quoted everything I said and only give me a very short reply,

 

> completely unrelated to the important things.

 

>

 

> No need to try and make me look like a fool. I am not asking for any

 

> advices about this and I do not have a good reason to tell you whether I

 

> have a NAT router between my home network and the outside. It is

 

> completely unrelated to our discussion.

 

 

 

The discussion is about security. Connect the dots. For YOUR sake, I

 

hope you use a router. I already do :-) If you don't like the way I

 

reply or the content, kill file me.

 

 

 

--

 

Alias

On 5/13/2010 19:54, Alias wrote:

 

> The discussion is about security. Connect the dots. For YOUR sake, I

 

> hope you use a router. I already do :-) If you don't like the way I

 

> reply or the content, kill file me.

 

>

 

 

 

I am sure you realize that the way you write things can be insulting to

 

the reader.

 

I am not ignorant to the importance of using one, but thank you for your

 

consideration.

WGAF

 

 

 

wrote in message

 

news:hdkmu59pdkha3inpite9bgcsenrjtspvsu@4ax.com...

 

> Well after working with Vista II, otherwise known as Windows 7, for

 

> three months I can see that Microsoft is still incapable of producing

 

> a quality OS. So I need to look at some other system to switch to,

 

> likely one of the Linux distros.

 

>

 

> Bill - MN

 

> --

"Jackie" wrote in message

 

news:4bec3f4d$0$23565$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...

 

> On 5/13/2010 19:54, Alias wrote:

 

>> The discussion is about security. Connect the dots. For YOUR sake, I

 

>> hope you use a router. I already do :-) If you don't like the way I

 

>> reply or the content, kill file me.

 

>>

 

>

 

> I am sure you realize that the way you write things can be insulting to

 

> the reader.

 

> I am not ignorant to the importance of using one, but thank you for your

 

> consideration.

 

 

 

That is the way Alias is. He can't backup any statement with fact. When

 

you call him on anything, he gets agitated and says to killfile him. He is

 

a garden variety troll with his main goal of trying to convert everyone to

 

that INFERIOR Ubuntu that the majority of people dislike.

 

 

 

Imagine, a FREE OS that has been FREE for years, yet Ubuntu is still on very

 

few desktop machines. That should tell you all you need to know about it.

On Thu, 13 May 2010 00:02:45 +0000, ray wrote:

 

 

> On Wed, 12 May 2010 19:16:44 -0600, no_one wrote:

 

snip

 

>

 

> If you find you need assistance, which you most likely won't, just

 

> holler. I'm partial to Debian myself.

 

 

 

Thanks Ray. I did the deed any this comes to you from, dare I say it?

 

Ubuntu. So far all is well. Even found the software to run my weather

 

station. Got a lot of work ahead to get it all sorted out and running my

 

way.

 

 

 

 

 

--

 

Bill - NM

On Fri, 14 May 2010 00:16:22 +0000, bill wrote:

 

 

> On Thu, 13 May 2010 00:02:45 +0000, ray wrote:

 

>

 

>> On Wed, 12 May 2010 19:16:44 -0600, no_one wrote:

 

> snip

 

>>

 

>> If you find you need assistance, which you most likely won't, just

 

>> holler. I'm partial to Debian myself.

 

>

 

> Thanks Ray. I did the deed any this comes to you from, dare I say it?

 

> Ubuntu. So far all is well. Even found the software to run my weather

 

> station. Got a lot of work ahead to get it all sorted out and running

 

> my way.

 

 

 

It's way easier than a lot of folks would like you to believe. Glad

 

you're having a good experience.

On 5/13/2010 5:16 PM, bill wrote:

 

> On Thu, 13 May 2010 00:02:45 +0000, ray wrote:

 

>

 

>> On Wed, 12 May 2010 19:16:44 -0600, no_one wrote:

 

> snip

 

>>

 

>> If you find you need assistance, which you most likely won't, just

 

>> holler. I'm partial to Debian myself.

 

>

 

> Thanks Ray. I did the deed any this comes to you from, dare I say it?

 

> Ubuntu. So far all is well. Even found the software to run my weather

 

> station. Got a lot of work ahead to get it all sorted out and running my

 

> way.

 

>

 

>

 

Lets us know how well Quattro Pro is running on your new os.

On Thu, 13 May 2010 15:07:43 +0200, Jackie wrote:

 

 

>On 5/13/2010 14:48, Alias wrote:

 

>> Nor do I. I use both Windows and Linux.

 

>Do you have anything to say about the other things I said? You quoted

 

>everything in my post.

 

 

 

 

 

Ah Jackie, you are learning about Alias. He posts some unsupported

 

slander about Windows and when someone rebuts his post complete with

 

quotes and references to demonstrate validity he replies with

 

irrelevancies.

 

 

 

Given that Alias seems to know very little about computers, witness

 

his assertion that the Windows kernel is the Registry and that a

 

certain compilation of Linux is a version based on the desktop

 

environment, it seems likely that he is one of these "instant

 

experts", that finally learned enough to turn the computer on and off

 

and now portrays himself as the all knowing pundit.

 

 

 

 

 

John B. Slocomb

 

(johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)