full-disclosure - lame bitching about xpsp2

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <6ffb9c7f0408180531432852b2@mail.gmail.com>
From: tukker at gmail.com (Raymond)
Subject: lame bitching about xpsp2

> ok, i dont know what you guys have done when installing xpsp2
> but their is nothing wrong with it!

I don't use XP, can't tell. But the opinion of one man isn't that impressive.

> i have gone through rc1 and rc2 - sure rc2 wasnt stable but its a beta its
> not supposed to be!

Release candidates are not beta's. That's why beta's are called beta's
and releasecandidates releasecandidates.

Eventhough, beta's should already have a certain reliability, since
beta means: ready for a scheduled releasetime. That is even more so
for releasecandidates because (yes:) they are releasecandidates.

> quite frankly if your dumb enough to install sp2 without thinking what you
> might break then it is your fault!! - ie uninstall any firewall software
> before installing sp2

If you think that your shoes fit everybody, you might not be as smart
as you want to be. I've seen my share of hardware and software drama
the past 20 years. I'm convinced that a package as SP2 has too much
impact for certain users, may it be because of legacy reasons, maybe
because of hardware restraints (Compaq anybody?) or even more simpler
reasons.

> m$ have actually got this one right!

Well, there's a first time for everything.

Raymond.