bofh wrote:
> Why is that a troll? He offered an opinion on Phpbb. It is neither good
> nor secure. [see below] Just because he cannot offer an alternative (there
> may not be a secure alternative even!)
>
Because that sentiment had already been echoed by others. No sense
beating dead horses except to puff up flames (which he succeeded in doing).
> Bad comparison. MSFT's patches are across an entire product line. You are
> talking about one specific product here. In order to get a valid
> comparison, you will have to count patches for a product of similar size and
> complexity. Which, if my memory serves me right, is actually smaller than
> phpbb's track record, which actually supports Adam's stance that phpbb is
> insecure.
>
No, I am counting *ONLY* Windows XP. I don't run Office, SQL Server, or
any other MSFT product on my gaming machine. It's bad enough just
having to deal with that much.
> That may be. It is still not secure. We are talking about security, not
> ease of patching, or following patch releases.
I never said it was secure. In fact, I distinctly recall saying "hell
no" to whether or not I considered phpBB secure. What I *did* say was
that it fit my needs, as I laid them out.
