00000c28

REPLYTO: 1:396/3 UUCP

REPLYADDR: me@privacy.invalid
From: Diesel 

Virus Guy  news:54CD1DE2.6F534CC9@Guy.corp Sat, 31
Jan 2015 18:24:34 GMT in alt.comp.anti-virus, wrote: 

> "Beauregard T. Nasty" wrote:
>  
>> Virus Troll crossposted:
> 
> You have a problem with the groups I've cross-posted to?
> 
> You don't think that the info about the ZeroAccess botnet is
> applicable to the 3 groups?
> 
> Or are you one of the usenet morons that thinks that crossposting
> between usenet groups shouldn't happen, regardless how many
> thousand groups exist and the similarity or commonality they may
> have? 
> 
>> > or the lie that the bloated NT-based Windows is or could ever be
>> > secured and protected from it's [SIC] own internal complexity
>> > and incredibly bad coding.
>> 
>> Isn't this where you are supposed to insert your silly advice
>> telling everyone to "upgrade" to Windows 98?  LOL
> 
> Ah, laughing klown.
> 
> I was supposed to include comments about win-98, so you and others
> could feel superior about NT and laugh away the very real history
> of vulnerability that NT just can't shake off or rise above,
> despite thousands of patches and fixes created over many years.

For one, windows98 doesn't support multiple CPU or A CPU with multiple 
cores. Windows98 is unable to take advantage of changes in technology. 
Windows9x is unable to run two months solid without being reset (don't 
even bother trying to claim otherwise, it's a documented fact that 
even MS confirms. Every fourty days or so, if you don't reboot, you'll 
crash and burn anyway). I don't have this problem under Windows NT. 
This machine hasn't been restarted in nearly a year now.

If an app crashes, an NT based OS won't usually go down in flames 
right along with it. Windows 9x oth, usually will.

Windows 9x is not malware immune by any stretch of the imagination. It  
would take me less than ten minutes to modify some source, compile it 
and do what's needed to generate the final output. It would be in 
complete control of your windows 9x machine seconds after you executed 
it. Under a properly configured NT machine, it would be restricted to 
the user account and denied access to critical system files. Under 
windows9x, it has free reign.
 
> So now the ball is in your court to address my ridicule of NT and
> it's line of perpetually vulnerable versions of Windoze.  Or fade
> back into the woodwork where you came from.

Your ridicule is based on stupidity on your part. There really isn't 
anything which requires addressing.
 



-- 
My truck does not leak. It's just marking its territory! 
--- NewsGate v1.0 gamma 2