Adam wrote:
> Chris Zakelj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>> He said "good and secure". Phpbb is neither.
>>>
>> Perhaps you would like to offer an alternative
>>
> Nope.
>
Then you are a useless troll. This will be my last reply to your filth.
>> instead of just dissing the phpBB users?
>>
> I didn't say anything about any users.
>
You did exactly that by attacking Jack's reply and not offering a
superior alternative. The admins are the users, the members are the
consumers.
>> Your definition of "good" is probably different, and phpBB might not
>> meet it.
>>
> My definition of good includes secure. "If you are a very low traffic
> obscure site and only have to worry about publicly released exploits
> you can patch, and you are willing to patch all the damn time" doesn't
> qualify as secure. Read the subject again.
>
Eleven patches in 26 months, or 0.4 patches/month. How does that
compare to your typical Linux distro, or the typical corporate
environment? How many patches has MSFT released in that timespan?
Compared to maintaining even my gaming rig (and its never-ending
onslaught of 64bit driver issues), following phpBB's security list is
incredibly easy.
> Adam
Call yourself what you really are. A sorry troll with no life, whose
messages even my spam filter knows what to do with. Goodbye.
