In message <
uJ5kXukeKHA.3792@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl>, MEB
<
MEB-not-here@hotmail.com> writes:
[]
>>> These are DEFINITELY *not* the way to achieve longer use of the 9X OS.
>>
>> Perhaps you could say what _is_ - other than keeping it in aspic, virgin
>> and untouched? Thinking about it, I don't think I have ever seen YOU
>> post anything about any update, for any part of '98. Maybe you've never
>> found any that satisfy your rigorous testing requirements.
>
> You're wasting my time...
>
Abuse rather than answering the question. Normal.
>>
>>> What part instill NEW AND UNKNOWN vulnerabilities escapes your mental
>>> faculties. Or is it you think that these provide fixes when they are NOT
>>> designed for the 9X OS and the way IT functions, AND are completely
>>> unknown to any available protections used with the 9X OS protection
>>> applications. Perhaps its just that you don't think...
>>>
>> Whisper this quietly: maybe they DO provide fixes (in the form of extra
>> functionality), but DO introduce new vulnerabilities at the same time!
>
> Okay, *YOU* provide the test results; SHOW 9X users they provide
>functionality and no new vulnerabilities... give them something to
>review so they can make an intelligent and informed decision...
>
As another said, you don't get to give orders. Whoever these
hypothetical people are, all they have to go on is: 98Guy posts some
references to files, which he says (without proof) may add some
functionality and may patch some vulnerabilities; you, whenever he does,
reflexly (I know that's not a word) post a warning that these have not
been tested to military standards and may introduce new vulnerabilities
(also without proof). These hypothetical people have to decide which of
you to believe. Or, you post a warning about new vulnerabilities taken
from somewhere else, and someone else (I think it's 98g) reflexly posts
the response "are these relevant to 98". Again, people have to make up
their own minds, since you don't provide any proof that they are, and he
doesn't that they're not.
[]
>> For once I will refrain from saying why don't you provide some, because
>> as I say I can't remember - recently, anyway - you providing any details
>> of any updates at all.
>
> BECAUSE THERE ARE NONE... 9X is EOL. It ended support life with a
>finite set of vulnerabilities, change those and you have NO idea what
>you do have.
Or don't change them; you still don't know what you have (unless
_possibly_ you're an expert of very high calibre; certainly not the
average or even above-average user). I think that's the nub of the
problem.
> You want fixes then do like you're SUPPOSED to do, search for
>programmers providing ACTUAL DESIGNED FOR 9X applications... guess what,
>there are some still doing so.
>
Make your mind up, there either are people (not necessarily within MS)
supporting 98, or there aren't.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
**
http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **
"Bother,"saidPoohwhenhisspacebarrefusedtowork.