From: John Cuccia 

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