|
| | | | Post in reply to: Adam Albright
He can't control himself, much less anyone else.
Alias
|
| |
| | | | | Post in reply to: dennis@home
Because I can read?
I'm still waiting for you to point out one lie and, so far, all I am
seeing is you running round like a cat chasing its tail.
MS sets "suggested" retail prices. I know this is true because I spoke
to three different computer chains and all three confirmed it. You don't
know but you can't admit that so YOU lie.
Alias
|
| |
| | | | | Post in reply to: Alias
hehehe...Frank owns your pathetic little lying ass!...LOL!
Frank
|
| |
| | | | | Post in reply to: Alias
Thanks for once again proving my point, my little Pavlovian dog!...LOL!
Frank
|
| |
| | | | | Post in reply to: Canuck57
Linux doesn't get attacked as much because it isn't as pervasive as Windows.
The same for OS-X, with such a small percentage of the market share, it
isn't as profitable to hack.
I'm no fan of Vista, but it does get more hack attempts just because it is
so pervasive.
|
| |
| | | | | Post in reply to: Not Me
Ponder this thought.
On the server side they are more equal. Lots of Linux/Apache. Lots of
Win/IIS.
Why does Win/IIS gets hacked at least 5 times more often?
|
| |
| | | | | Post in reply to: Not Me
Not that hoary old myth again - Linux doesn't get attacked because its
architecture makes it very difficult to attack, users do NOT work on a daily
basis with root privileges, unlike the vast majority of Windows users, most
distros do not allow a user to log on without passwords, unlike Windows, and
if Linux does get a virus, then the most damage that can be done is to
corrupt the User account...which is completely divorced from the kernel....
|
| |
| |
|