I hate any product made by Sony, they can just die for all I care. If we let Sony win with Blew-Ray, then we're enabling them to continue producing poor quality products in our market and selling them at over-inflated prices. Besides, HD-DVD has much better video quality than Blew-Ray. Boycott Sony!!!
"The problem? Safari for Windows just isn't Windows enough."
What??? No, that's not even close! The real issue is that SAFARI DOESN'T EVEN WORK AT ALL! It's a piece of crap that crashes with a safari.exe error upon EVERY load if behind a proxy. And since proxy settings are disabled there's no way to go in and turn it off even if you circumvent the proxied network. This is the only time it does NOT crash, but like I said there's nothing you can do to turn off the settings to make it work.
Firefox is here to stay, Mozilla has made a secure foundation that functions efficiently, not like Crapple's Safari. Get your shit fixed, then come and try to play ball in the Windows market. Until then, stop touting your poorly designed products as if they are the next best thing since sliced bread, Mr. Hand Jobs.
Or perhaps Microsoft is the only one being honest about reporting real highly vulnerable security concerns while open source OS developers are categorizing their security patches as being medium to low threat to create the appearance that their fixes are relatively small and mostly for applications because the kernel is more secure. In doing this, they will increase their ever growing support for the tech fanatics who slam Microsoft for everything as their OS is among the few alternatives to move away from Microsoft. Coincidence? I think not. Microsoft may not be the most secure just because they fixed six times more highly vulnerable security issues, but what we do know is that Microsoft is the quickest in turn around time to patch these vulnerabilities (so they deserve an applause for that). Also, you can say that having 90% of the desktop share means the Windows OS will be attacked that much more, and vulnerabilities will be reported in much greater numbers, allowing Microsoft to create patches for issues more rapidly. Regardless of the "which OS is more secure" battle, we all know that code is code and there will be vulnerabilities, whether its open source or closed source. However, I think Microsoft has come a long way since the release of XP SP2 and generally more concerned with focus on security than anything else.
Slashdot Mirror
I hate any product made by Sony, they can just die for all I care. If we let Sony win with Blew-Ray, then we're enabling them to continue producing poor quality products in our market and selling them at over-inflated prices. Besides, HD-DVD has much better video quality than Blew-Ray. Boycott Sony!!!
"The problem? Safari for Windows just isn't Windows enough." What??? No, that's not even close! The real issue is that SAFARI DOESN'T EVEN WORK AT ALL! It's a piece of crap that crashes with a safari.exe error upon EVERY load if behind a proxy. And since proxy settings are disabled there's no way to go in and turn it off even if you circumvent the proxied network. This is the only time it does NOT crash, but like I said there's nothing you can do to turn off the settings to make it work. Firefox is here to stay, Mozilla has made a secure foundation that functions efficiently, not like Crapple's Safari. Get your shit fixed, then come and try to play ball in the Windows market. Until then, stop touting your poorly designed products as if they are the next best thing since sliced bread, Mr. Hand Jobs.
Or perhaps Microsoft is the only one being honest about reporting real highly vulnerable security concerns while open source OS developers are categorizing their security patches as being medium to low threat to create the appearance that their fixes are relatively small and mostly for applications because the kernel is more secure. In doing this, they will increase their ever growing support for the tech fanatics who slam Microsoft for everything as their OS is among the few alternatives to move away from Microsoft. Coincidence? I think not. Microsoft may not be the most secure just because they fixed six times more highly vulnerable security issues, but what we do know is that Microsoft is the quickest in turn around time to patch these vulnerabilities (so they deserve an applause for that). Also, you can say that having 90% of the desktop share means the Windows OS will be attacked that much more, and vulnerabilities will be reported in much greater numbers, allowing Microsoft to create patches for issues more rapidly. Regardless of the "which OS is more secure" battle, we all know that code is code and there will be vulnerabilities, whether its open source or closed source. However, I think Microsoft has come a long way since the release of XP SP2 and generally more concerned with focus on security than anything else.