The One.
The one gonad.
Get a proper email account you cowardly faggot.
On Fri, Sep 21, 2007 at 08:53:02AM +0100, Craig Skinner wrote:
The One.
The one gonad.
Get a proper email account you cowardly faggot.
Lets not get into WW II morale-boosting songs :)
Doug.
Tony Abernethy wrote:
Dunno about anyone else, but that seems like some kind of poetic justice.
Preserving the pseudo-integrity of garbage seems like it should be very low
on the list of priorities.
I'm not entirely sure what you mean, but I do think that persuading the
mailing list server
On 9/19/07, Peter N. M. Hansteen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The One [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Security is one of the concerns Leopard will solve.
**BLAM**
Security is never, ever a completely solved problem. Your world just
isn' that simple. Do NOT pass GO.
I sincerely hope never to hear
On Fri, Sep 21, 2007 at 12:08:55AM +1000, The One wrote:
If anyone can solve security, whether it is with Leopard or in the
future, Apple definitely can.
In my opinion, Apple performs 100% in the software field, and 90% in
the hardware field, which is due to, as I explained in my previous
On 9/20/07, The One [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Don't bother following up, I won't be listening. Or maybe I will, and
I might even venture out from under my rock again before 4.4 ships.
If anyone can solve security, whether it is with Leopard or in the
future, Apple definitely can.
In my
On 9/20/07, The One [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 9/19/07, Peter N. M. Hansteen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The One [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Security is one of the concerns Leopard will solve.
**BLAM**
Security is never, ever a completely solved problem. Your world just
isn' that
Sorry but I am just disagreed with Theo saying that OS X is buggy and insecure.
On 9/21/07, Marc Espie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Sep 21, 2007 at 12:08:55AM +1000, The One wrote:
If anyone can solve security, whether it is with Leopard or in the
future, Apple definitely can.
In my
The One [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In my opinion,
In my opinion, you're simply a source of off-topic noise for this
mailing list. There has to be dozens of mailing lists, web forums and
the like where your fruit worship is welcome. Please go there.
--
Peter N. M. Hansteen, member of the
On Fri, Sep 21, 2007 at 01:00:11AM +1000, The One wrote:
Sorry but I am just disagreed with Theo saying that OS X is buggy and
insecure.
Whatever. BORED already.
Go troll elsewhere.
The One [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If anyone can solve security, whether it is with Leopard or in the
future, Apple definitely can.
In my opinion, Apple performs 100% in the software field, and 90% in
the hardware field, which is due to, as I explained in my previous
messages, depending off
On Thu, Sep 20, 2007 at 11:13:48AM -0400, stuart van Zee wrote:
There is no such thing as Solving Security. It does not exist.
It could only exist in a perfect world and as you know, or at least
should know, this is NOT a perfect world.
I have one absolutely secure computer. Actually I
On 09/19/07 13:07, Die Gestalt wrote:
On 9/19/07, Daniel Ouellet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think in German, it's call Chaise or something very close to that I
believe, but I am absolutely sure the spelling is not good.
..
ScheiC e? Merde?
Using non-ASCII characters in e-mail is also:
On 9/21/07, stuart van Zee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The One [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If anyone can solve security, whether it is with Leopard or in the
future, Apple definitely can.
In my opinion, Apple performs 100% in the software field, and 90% in
the hardware field, which is due
On 9/20/07, The One [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry but I am just disagreed with Theo saying that OS X is buggy and
insecure.
Who gives a shit? This tread is more then FIVE months old and didnt
even belong here in the first place. Just stop.
---
Lars Hansson
Many people are in agreement over this.
Is it possible for someone in charge of the list to either ban or somehow stop
The One [EMAIL PROTECTED] from continuing this particular thread/subject?
Thank you!
On Fri, Sep 21, 2007 at 11:36:34AM +0800, Lars Hansson wrote:
On 9/20/07, The One [EMAIL
But if OS X Tiger was to gain 100 % market share, I honestly believe
that my Mac would not be affected by any viruses or hacking,
whatsoever.
Of course, there may be some flaws discovered if such an event were to
occur, but I am a very careful being.
And with Safari's Private Browsing and
What I meant to say was that Leopard's release will solve every
current problem prevailant in OS X Tiger and people's opinions about
the Macintosh platform, although their current, so-called opinions
have no evidence behind them, whatsoever.
Security is one of the concerns Leopard will solve.
I
The One [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Security is one of the concerns Leopard will solve.
**BLAM**
Security is never, ever a completely solved problem. Your world just
isn' that simple. Do NOT pass GO.
I sincerely hope never to hear such nonsense on misc, ever again.
Sure, the next release is
* The One [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-09-19 11:17]:
What I meant to say was that Leopard's release will solve every
current problem prevailant in OS X Tiger and people's opinions about
the Macintosh platform, although their current, so-called opinions
have no evidence behind them, whatsoever.
Henning Brauer wrote:
* The One [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-09-19 11:17]:
What I meant to say was that Leopard's release will solve every
current problem prevailant in OS X Tiger and people's opinions about
the Macintosh platform, although their current, so-called opinions
have no evidence behind
Die Gestalt wrote:
[...]
ScheiC[1F]e? Merde?
Incidentally, from Gestalt's headers:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
I've been noticing for a while that openbsd-misc appears to be
unilaterally changing the transfer-encoding header to 7bit without
: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 7:28 AM
To: obsd-misc
Subject: Mailing list issues (was: Microsoft gets the Most
Secure Operating Systems award)
Die Gestalt wrote:
[...]
ScheiC[1F]e? Merde?
Incidentally, from Gestalt's headers:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer
Apple will, undoubtedly, implement some of these basic techniques for Leopard.
But market share has completely NOTHING to do with OS X's security.
Apple always has and will be 100 % when it comes to their software for
OS X and OS X itself.
Only time will tell. Leopard's release will solve every
Why are you still talking?
Why are you topposting?
Why does it matter to the world at all what your one random friend does?
And the standard: What does this have to do with OpenBSD?
On 9/17/07, The One [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Apple will, undoubtedly, implement some of these basic techniques for
But how would it spread? There have been 2 OS X viruses, yet they
spread terribly.
And Apple has already fixed the issue. :)
-The One
On 9/2/07, Kennith Mann III [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 9/1/07, The One [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/23/07 2:53 AM, Theo de Raadt wrote:
Symantec have
Welcome to a really long time ago.
---
Lars Hansson
The One wrote:
But how would it spread? There have been 2 OS X viruses, yet they
spread terribly.
And Apple has already fixed the issue. :)
-The One
On 9/2/07, Kennith Mann III [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 9/1/07, The One [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/23/07 2:53 AM, Theo de Raadt
On 3/23/07 2:53 AM, Theo de Raadt wrote:
Symantec have been trying to demonise OS X for a long while.
And it is going to work soon.
Because OS X has no Propolice-like compiler stack protection, nor
anything like W^X which makes parts of the address space
non-executable, nor anything like
Thought you might be interested in this:
http://www.omninerd.com/2007/03/26/articles/74
More or less a follow up to the Windows award...
This time with FreeBSD in the comparison...
2007/3/24, Dan Farrell [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On 3/23/07, Darren Spruell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/23/07,
On 3/23/07 2:53 AM, Theo de Raadt wrote:
Symantec have been trying to demonise OS X for a long while.
And it is going to work soon.
Because OS X has no Propolice-like compiler stack protection, nor
anything like W^X which makes parts of the address space
non-executable, nor anything like
On 3/23/07, chefren [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
p.s. Maybe I was too harsh against Karel?
Survey says:
No.
DS
On 3/23/07, Darren Spruell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/23/07, chefren [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
p.s. Maybe I was too harsh against Karel?
Survey says:
No.
DS
I agree :)
Marius
On 3/23/07, Jeff Rollin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 22/03/07, Greg Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/22/07, Jeff Rollin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 22/03/07, Marc Espie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 03:28:29PM -0400, Douglas Allan Tutty wrote:
Their challenge is
On 3/23/07, Darren Spruell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/23/07, chefren [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
p.s. Maybe I was too harsh against Karel?
Survey says:
No.
DS
I agree :)
Marius
I'll bottom post just this once to add to this list of agreement.
danno
Hi,
http://www.internetnews.com/security/article.php/3667201
Just for some entertainment, no troll :-)
--Siju
Nice, let's all now switch our servers to Windows!!!
Oh but it doesn't run on ultrasparc...
Nevermind...
:D
2007/3/23, Siju George [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi,
http://www.internetnews.com/security/article.php/3667201
Just for some entertainment, no troll :-)
--Siju
--
Please avoid sending
On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 18:58:31 +0530, Siju George [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
http://www.internetnews.com/security/article.php/3667201
From the article:
Microsoft is doing better overall than its leading commercial competitors.
Siju George wrote:
Hi,
http://www.internetnews.com/security/article.php/3667201
Just for some entertainment, no troll :-)
--Siju
IMHO it's not a fair comparison, most linux distributions ship with alot
more software than microsoft windows does, and most bugreports indicate
an issue
On 3/22/07, Ben Calvert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Microsoft is doing better overall than its leading commercial competitors.
^^
No wonder. they stacked the deck before doing the comparison
doesn't this mean that they now
On Thursday 22 March 2007 11:29 am, RedShift wrote:
Siju George wrote:
Hi,
http://www.internetnews.com/security/article.php/3667201
Just for some entertainment, no troll :-)
--Siju
IMHO it's not a fair comparison, most linux distributions ship with alot
more software than
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
Siju George
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 8:29 AM
To: OpenBSD Misc
Subject: Microsoft gets the Most Secure Operating Systems award
Hi,
http://www.internetnews.com/security/article.php/3667201
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
RedShift
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 10:30 AM
To: misc@openbsd.org
Subject: Re: Microsoft gets the Most Secure Operating Systems award
Siju George wrote:
Hi,
http://www.internetnews.com
On 3/22/07, Neil Joseph Schelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thursday 22 March 2007 11:29 am, RedShift wrote:
Siju George wrote:
Hi,
http://www.internetnews.com/security/article.php/3667201
Just for some entertainment, no troll :-)
--Siju
IMHO it's not a fair comparison, most
On Thu, 22 Mar 2007, RedShift wrote:
Siju George wrote:
http://www.internetnews.com/security/article.php/3667201
Just for some entertainment, no troll :-)
IMHO it's not a fair comparison, most linux distributions ship with alot
more
software than microsoft windows does, and most bugreports
Siju George wrote:
Hi,
http://www.internetnews.com/security/article.php/3667201
Just for some entertainment, no troll :-)
--Siju
IMHO it's not a fair comparison, most linux distributions ship with alot
more software than microsoft windows does, and most bugreports indicate
an
On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 08:12:23AM -0700, Ben Calvert wrote:
On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 18:58:31 +0530, Siju George
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
http://www.internetnews.com/security/article.php/3667201
From the article:
Microsoft is doing better overall than its leading commercial
On 3/22/07, Bob Beck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And yes a big chunk of the problem is the knuckle
dragging mouth breather in front of the keyboard - thank god that's
not OpenBSD's targeted userbase,
Damn, I wonder how I stumbled onto OpenBSD then.
Greg
On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 03:28:29PM -0400, Douglas Allan Tutty wrote:
Their challenge is that they need to provide choice so they
have what they call reasonable defaults.
No, they don't need to provide choice. At least not that many. They decide
to do so. That's most of what's wrong with OS
On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 09:40:57PM +0100, Marc Espie wrote:
On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 03:28:29PM -0400, Douglas Allan Tutty wrote:
Their challenge is that they need to provide choice so they
have what they call reasonable defaults.
No, they don't need to provide choice. At least not that
On 3/22/07, Marc Espie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 03:28:29PM -0400, Douglas Allan Tutty wrote:
Their challenge is that they need to provide choice so they
have what they call reasonable defaults.
No, they don't need to provide choice. At least not that many. They decide
On 22/03/07, Marc Espie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 03:28:29PM -0400, Douglas Allan Tutty wrote:
Their challenge is that they need to provide choice so they
have what they call reasonable defaults.
No, they don't need to provide choice. At least not that many. They decide
On 3/22/07, Jeff Rollin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 22/03/07, Marc Espie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 03:28:29PM -0400, Douglas Allan Tutty wrote:
Their challenge is that they need to provide choice so they
have what they call reasonable defaults.
No, they don't need
On 3/22/07, Bob Beck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
from a vegetarian at that.
The fallacy that is this clause undermines your broader argument.
Promise yourself not to spread such falsity again, and you will be
well served.
-Todd
On 23/03/2007, at 3:19 AM, Lars D. Noodin wrote:
Symantic makes its living selling paper bailing cups in a leaky boat.
;-)
The media actively participates in obfuscating the issues, the
causes and
the solutions by publicizing such crap from Symantic and MS.
Yes. Symantec make their money
Symantec have been trying to demonise OS X for a long while.
And it is going to work soon.
Because OS X has no Propolice-like compiler stack protection, nor
anything like W^X which makes parts of the address space
non-executable, nor anything like address space randomization which
makes certain
On 3/22/07, Marc Espie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 03:28:29PM -0400, Douglas Allan Tutty wrote:
Their challenge is that they need to provide choice so they
have what they call reasonable defaults.
No, they don't need to provide choice. At least not that many. They decide
57 matches
Mail list logo
