Re: Windoze almost managed to 200x repeat 9/11

[ASB <abaker () gmail com>]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Next time, please read the thread in context.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The context of the thread is that an application issue is being
incorrectly interpreted as an OS issue.


-ASB

On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 14:43:53 -0400, Barry Fitzgerald
<bkfsec () sdf lonestar org> wrote:
> ASB wrote:
>
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > Where issues like this relate to the OS is in the fact that the OS
> > itself shouldn't be brought down by a poorly designed app.
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > And where in that article did you read that the OS was brought down by
> > a poorly designed app?
> I didn't... I was reponding to a point that was made about applications
> being reponsible for system failures.
>
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> >
> > > Was it MS Windows that actually held the code that brought the system down?
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > The article was pretty clear:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > How you managed to read "OS failure" into this is rather astounding...
> How you manage to get up in the morning is rather astounding.
>
> Next time, please read the thread in context.
>
> Also, if you think that that's a detailed assessment of the problem,
> you're not too bright.
>
> So try and think a little harder next time, and not be so abbrassive.
> You may be having a bad day (most likely due to your poor attitude) but
> don't take your own misunderstanding out on others, mmkay?
>
>             -Barry

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html