Re: OFT say you have our attention on M$
- From: Robert Hull <Robert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2006 23:41:14 +0000
In uk.comp.os.linux, on Sun 29 January 2006 23:16, Bruce Stephens
<bruce+usenet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> And some web sites (though few, thankfully) still require Microsoft IE
> to work properly.
Then these sites haven't a hope, unless you use Mircosoft's definition
of "properly" whereby if the exploits that they build into one version
of IE fail to cure the exploits from the previous version then it is
working "properly".
I try to avoid sites that rely on any M$ software working properly.
--
Robert HULL If it's there and you can see it - it's real
If it's there and you can't see it - it's transparent
If it's not there and you can see it - it's virtual
If it's not there and you can't see it - it's gone!
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: OFT say you have our attention on M$
- From: Ian Rawlings
- Re: OFT say you have our attention on M$
- References:
- OFT say you have our attention on M$
- From: Tarquin Mills
- Re: OFT say you have our attention on M$
- From: Beck
- Re: OFT say you have our attention on M$
- From: Ewan Mac Mahon
- Re: OFT say you have our attention on M$
- From: Beck
- Re: OFT say you have our attention on M$
- From: Bruce Stephens
- OFT say you have our attention on M$
- Prev by Date: Re: OFT say you have our attention on M$
- Next by Date: Re: OFT say you have our attention on M$
- Previous by thread: Re: OFT say you have our attention on M$
- Next by thread: Re: OFT say you have our attention on M$
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
