OFF: Virus alert (genuine)

[JOHN M GRAY]

Another rant?  Get a life! And I was not trying to impress anyone, just show
I was not a casual user with no basis for my opinion.  I have used numerous
OS's in my job.  MS applications happen to work.  All I was trying to say at
the beginning of this was that just because a virus is successful against a
particular program, doesn't mean that the program or every product the
company makes "blow chunks" as you say.  A virus can be directed at any
system or program, MS is just a large target, much like terrorists attacking
the US or Americans, it gets press.  And I don't recall MS ever claiming
their products are invulnerable to a virus.   I know that there are people
on this list who will never change their opinion of MS just like they will
swear everything released by HW is great.  I didn't expect to convert you.
But at least I am open to seeing the value of a product whether I like the
company who makes it or not.  You, apparently, are not able to.  And just
because Brittany Spears sells more records than HW doesn't make her a bad
singer, just not my style.  Particularly touchy on this subject aren't you?
John

----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Mather <paul at GROMIT.DLIB.VT.EDU>
To: <BOC-L at LISTSERV.SPC.EDU>
Sent: Saturday, May 06, 2000 7:19 PM
Subject: Re: OFF: Virus alert (genuine)


> On Sat, 6 May 2000, JOHN M GRAY wrote:
>
> => That would be NT,95, Unix, Linux and oh MACs if you want to count them.
> => Sorry I don't have time to rant in detail like you do, I have more
important
> => stuff to do.
>
> Obviously, actually *reading* the messages you respond to is not one of
> the things you consider important either.
>
> But, despite your assertion you have "more important stuff to do," you
> spewed:
>
> => My email got exactly the response I expected from MS haters.  Reminds
me of
> => how MAC users whine at how MS is the dominating OS now.  I'm sure the
> => "better" systems you use will soon take over.  Funny, many computer
people I
> => know think Unix, Linux and MAC's are steaming piles.  I'll let them
know
> => that based on your expert authority and bigger dick that they are
wrong.  I
> => admit MS isn't the best at every thing, just that they pretty good
products
> => and stand by my assertion that they don't suck as much as you say, if
they
> => did, they wouldn't be where they are now.   They didn't invent many of
the
> => products they push, only made them better, but Ford didn't invent the
> => automobile either and they make a pretty good car.   The blanket
statement
> => that you make that everything MS puts out sucks shows how closed mind
and
> => biased you are.  I
> =>  bow to your bigger dick, better OS, (what was the name of your great
system
> => again?)and humbly await the time when it takes over the computing
world.
> => I'll probably have a long wait.
>
> Go back to school and learn to read.  Better yet, learn to comprehend.
> You were the one who tried to impress everyone with your big-time
> network administrator credentials.  Ooooh.  Aaaah.  Sorry, try harder.
> *I* wasn't the one who cavalierly dismissed the experience of everyone
> else, and claimed they just had "sour grapes."  I just made the
> misfortune of relating personal and first-hand experience of Micro$oft
> products.
>
> I don't waste my time hating Micro$oft.  (Thank you for labelling me a
> "M$ Hater."  I guess it's always easier to deal with someone when you
> put a label on them.)  It's not worth it.  In fact, I feel sorry for
> those I know who have to use Windoze on a daily basis, for they are
> always lamenting it.  If you like it, I'm happy for you.  Just don't act
> like it's some kind of thought crime to think badly of Micro$oft.  It
> isn't (yet?).
>
> I seem to recall it was *you* who kicked over this whole can of worms in
> the first place by remonstrating with people on here not to call poor
> Billy Gates and his pals in Redmond names, and we should stop being so
> awful about poor Micro$oft's current misfortunes.  Tell it to the 6
> o'clock news.  Tell them to pretend ILOVEYOU didn't happen, and didn't
> disrupt thousands of computers and cause the deletions of many many
> files.  (I will pretend that story didn't run in today's paper, too.)
> Hey, maybe if we all think hard enough, reality will change around us?
>
> Please show me where I said that "everything MS puts out sucks."  In
> fact, I've never used the word "sucks;" I hate that word.  (I believe
> "blow chunks" was my chosen phrase.:)  Micro$oft products are, on the
> whole, inferior (and in some cases---e.g., Windoze---are grossly so),
> but even I am not so stupid as to make a blanket statement that
> *everything* they put out is unmitigated pap.  Hey, you don't spend a
> ton of money buying up Turing Award winners like cheap whores and not
> get anything for your money.  (And the law of averages says that
> something good will eventually slip through the net.)
>
> As for your tired logic of "if Micro$oft was bad, it wouldn't be where
> it is today," let me remind you that the old adage used to be "Nobody
> got fired for buying IBM."  The new adage is "Nobody gets fired for
> buying Micro$oft."  It's not because it's the best, but it's because
> it's what everyone uses.  Do a bit of reading on evolutionary theory.
> Alternatively, consider this: "if Britney Spears made bad music, she
> wouldn't be where she is today; I mean, tons of people love her, and she
> sells oodles of records, so she must be great."  Whilst I'm sure, on
> some level, the music of Britney Spears can be considered "adequate," it
> is far from what many would call the state of the art.
>
> Micro$oft is the Britney Spears of computing.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Paul.
>
> PS: The "best" (as you put it) does not always win.  But, as Hawkwind
> and BOC fans, we are used to that...
>
> e-mail: paul at gromit.dlib.vt.edu
>
> "Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring production
>  deadlines or dates by which bills must be paid."
>         --- Frank Vincent Zappa