Posted on 08/21/2005 5:35:07 PM PDT by bizzyblog
I agree OS X is finally a real OS for Macs; however, the Mac fanatics are still singing the same song they did when the first Mac was released. So how is an typical user to know when they aren't lying anymore?
Please point me to these post where I slam 2000? I have said many times that 2k is a great desktop OS and a huge step in the right direction for MS... 2000 has been unsupported for a total of 1.5 months, OS9 is five years past its last sold date...
To be honest I don't want to go done that road again where I show you a post and then we argue of the context. However, I will say this...when you said the Mac guys are bit ridiculous on their claims (you're dead on). Or you said something to that affect.
I don't know, how can we tell when MS advocates aren't lying about security in Windows? Your loaded language aside, the first Mac was in fact far more advanced than the PCs of the time, which took until Windows 3.1 to come remotely close.
I corrected my post for that. I can't believe anyone is willing to pay $250 for a G3 anything, but it's apparently true.
Still spreading your lies I see. You know this is BS, you can download the latest service packs and brand new security patches right this minute from Windowsupdate.com.
Will ie7, the next windows media player, or on the server side any new versions of iis be released for 2000?
ANOTHER lie. Just can't help yourself, obviously.
http://www.cdw.com/shop/products/default.aspx?EDC=274395
Lets see what MS says about the extended support that win2000 is currently in:
* Paid support
* Security update support at no additional cost
* Non-security related hotfix support requires a separate Extended Hotfix Support contract to be purchased. Per-fix fees also apply.
* Microsoft will not accept requests for warranty support, design changes, or new features during the Extended support phase.
* Extended support is not available for Consumer, Hardware, Multimedia, and Business Solutions.
You may thing security bug fixes are the be all end all of server and desktop updates but I think otherwise..
CDW is an authorized distributor of the product. New, unused copies are still for sale, and it is still being supported with security fixes. Your lies to the contrary mean nothing, except that you're a liar. Habitual, as a matter of fact.
I think you're probably confused with these products, which no longer are supported by the vendor AT ALL, even if you want to pay:
https://www.redhat.com/security/updates/eol/
Looks like that Red Hat 9 was only supported for 1 year, total?
You're right... it is about definitions. It may surprise you to learn that the definition of "Challenge" does not equal the definition of "Contest". Also "have been" is not the equivalent of "are".
The challenge still exists... and you even enunciated it in your previous post:
"But keep on spouting off...eventually some hacker will say hell just to shut you up I'll do it."
Let's look at the entire section that I posted instead of just cherry picking one sentence. Context matters.
Swordmaker wrote:
"A(n) expert programmer in both the Windows invironment and in various forms of Unix as well as a security expert, stated that on a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is the difficulty of writing a Windows virus, the Mac comes in at a 9. Crackers write viruses for the accolade of their peers... and the greatest accolade would be for writing a virus that brings down the "arrogant, condescending, and smug" Mac users! Where is it, For-q?There have been several substantial CASH prizes for writing a viable, transmittable and self propagating virus for the Mac (the last offering had to be withdrawn because of legal reasons) but all of them have gone unclaimed.
"The US Army and the FBI have selected Macintosh OSX computers because of their inherent security...
The challenge is out there... write your virus. We are not worried."
In response For-q posted:
"As far as the challenge, give me a link to the current challenge and the payout so I can determine if it's worth the money. Since there's a good chance I'll go to jail and have to pay restitution I'll need to see what the rules are before proceeding."
Now, exactly what part of "(the last offering had to be withdrawn because of legal reasons)" did you fail to understand... or can you point out where I stated or implied that there are current contests?
It is not my concern that you got your panties in a wad because you were disappointed you could not win a cash prize anymore... I never said you could. The previous unclaimed contests were held in a legal vacuum... no laws had yet been passed criminalizing malware.
You keep bouncing back and forth between "exploit" and "virus". You don't even know the history of OSX or the Mac and claim to have found something that no one else in the entire world, especially expert Mac users and technicians (including me) have never heard of... right.
You are temporally challenged.
I stand by my comment that you have reading comprehension problem.
Yet ANOTHER lie!
Red Hat Linux 9 was NOT renamed Red Hat Enterprise Linux 2.1, in fact they're not even based on the same version of the kernel.
http://www.unixgods.org/~tilo/redhat_versions.html
Yet ANOTHER lie!
Red Hat Linux 9 was NOT renamed Red Hat Enterprise Linux 2.1, in fact they're not even based on the same version of the kernel.
http://www.unixgods.org/~tilo/redhat_versions.html
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.