In news:eMnr3ffEGHA.208@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl,
Michael Stevens <mstevens@bogusmvps.org> replied with a ;-)
> In news:050120060102130223%mitch@hawaii.rr,
> Mitch <mitch@hawaii.rr> replied with a ;-)
>> In article <eJ16R$dEGHA.2300@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl>, Michael Stevens
>> <mstevens@bogusmvps.org> wrote:
>>
>>> MS will always have the official advisory to not apply any non-ms
>>> patch, but does anyone think the leaked patch was leaked? LOL
>>
>> What are you implying?
>> It isn't clear at all which 'patch' you are writing about, but I see
>> no reason to imagine that Microsoft created ANY solution to this
>> problem yet -- only a lot of resistance from them to do anything
>> about it.
>>
>> Even if they did create a patch that got distributed before they
>> wanted, it doesn't alleviate any of the blame they deserve for not
>> getting the thing out and distributed to every user.
>
> Well you snipped the part of my post that explained what I was
> implying. I was replying to the OP and giving feedback on my
> experience with the Ilfak Guilfanov patch wmffix patch. I wasn't
> laying blame on Microsoft, I was just giving my take on the
> situation. I do not think MS is the god of computing and understand
> when they say something is not supported you should realize it is
> only MS that does not support it and there are many reasons unrelated
> to technical aspects that influences the MS advisory. When an open source
> patch like this one, that has been securitized by
> a much larger base of computer experts than the patch MS releases
> signs off on it, I feel just as safe and secure as one I would get
> from a daily update from Avaste, Trend, AVG, Norton, etc. Why should
> I place a higher value of trust on MS for a patch that only they sign
> off on opposed to one that a much larger testing base signed off on
> as safe and effective. I agree about their policy on how they release
> patches, patches
> should be released as soon as they effectively fix the problem. They
> should not be released on a schedule. There is no excuse for intenti
> onally letting an OS be venerable to attacks that could have been
> avoided.

That should have read as........
I DISAGREE about their policy on how they release patches, patches
should be released as soon as they effectively fix the problem.