From: "Ronnie T. Mungo, Boy Genius" 

I think he was refering to "QFE." At least, I hope so! 



RTM, BG
"John Cuccia"  wrote in message
news:s50h3v4ieopijnlr6evodeoduf4nh3pifp{at}4ax.com...
> Quite frankly, I am amazed    The fact that you consider "stable" and
> "secure" to be buzzwords speaks volumes about you (and, by extension,
> Microsoft).  No wonder you guys continue to put out buggy, insecure
> product.  You just don't care.
>
> On Wed, 29 Jan 2003 17:26:15 -0800, "Rich"  wrote:
>
> >   Why not toss out a bunch of other buzz words, mom, and apple pie too?
You still won't get everyone to agree.
> >
> >Rich
> >
> >  "John Cuccia"  wrote in message
news:9lug3v0k0hki3uuu16nh08i5caec2nardv{at}4ax.com...
> >  You don't think everyone wants a process that produces stable, secure
> >  systems?
> >
> >  The fact is, MS does not thoroughly test QFEs. That lack of testing
> >  has led to the release of patches that break systems, making people
> >  very reluctant to trust the update du jour.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >  On Wed, 29 Jan 2003 15:25:38 -0800, "Rich"  wrote:
> >
> >  >   "For all" is a problem.  You won't find that
everyone wants the
same thing.
> >  >
> >  >Rich
> >  >  "Robert Comer" 
wrote in message
news:3e3833d2{at}w3.nls.net...
> >  >  Yes he was, but he was trying to suggest a solution for all. (and
that's what we need!)
> >  >
> >  >  - Bob Comer
> >  >
> >  >
> >  >    "Rich"  wrote in message
news:3e381f62{at}w3.nls.net...
> >  >       George was going on about Slapper at Microsoft.  You can rant
on other topics if you want but it makes no difference.
> >  >
> >  >       I also gree that George's conclusions are unsupported by his
premise and argument but since the premise was false, the rest falls apart anyway.
> >  >
> >  >    Rich
> >  >
> >  >      "Robert Comer"
 wrote in message
news:3e3808c2{at}w3.nls.net...
> >  >      I don't think i'd agree with it being a false premise, at least
for a
> >  >      majority of us users out here -- products are on CD and the copy
protection
> >  >      is that activation crap and the product key.
> >  >
> >  >      Anyway, i don't see what he is saying would work either, most
people don't
> >  >      have the bandwidth to be downloading a CD everytime they want to
do an
> >  >      install...
> >  >
> >  >      - Bob Comer
> >  >
> >  >
> >  >      "Rich"  wrote in message
news:3e3805ce$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> >  >         From below, that installs are from CD and that the products
are copy
> >  >      protected.  His full rant probably contains more.
> >  >
> >  >      Rich
> >  >
> >  >      "Robert Comer"
 wrote in message
> >  >      news:3e378a2a$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> >  >      What false premise?
> >  >
> >  >      - Bob Comer
> >  >
> >  >
> >  >      "Rich"  wrote in message
news:3e378899$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> >  >         The first problem with George's rant is that it is based on a
false
> >  >      premise.
> >  >
> >  >      Rich
> >  >
> >  >      "Antti Kurenniemi"
 wrote in
message
> >  >      news:3e3762ee{at}w3.nls.net...
> >  >      That really sounds likea a good idea. Unfortunately I think it
will probably
> >  >      never happen :-(
> >  >
> >  >
> >  >      Antti Kurenniemi
> >  >
> >  >      "Geo."  wrote in message
news:3e374ea7{at}w3.nls.net...
> >  >      > yes I read all about it. It occurs to me that a big part of
the
> >  >      > problem with how they are dealing with this problem is
> >  >      > actually related to copy protection. One of the things that
> >  >      > causes all these unpatched machines to continuously be
> >  >      > available is that people are always doing new
> >  >      > installs/re-installs for whatever reasons. They are forced
> >  >      > to use the original CD which of course contains unpatched
> >  >      > code, then apply service pack and lord knows how many
> >  >      > hot fixes.[snip]
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-4