notRob In reply to g00p [2007-01-17 23:17:18 +0000 UTC]

hehe. i use citrix in xp and "hard hat mac" kills time whilst pretending to work... *head hung in shame* you can't do everything with linux. yet.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

g00p In reply to notRob [2007-01-18 12:10:23 +0000 UTC]

getting there

at least the terminals are useable!

its not what it is, its what ya do with it - but proprietary os's seem to wanna restrict yer

hang that shameful head i say

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

notRob In reply to g00p [2007-01-19 00:33:38 +0000 UTC]

where there is money to be made, there will ALWAYS be someone cashing in... that's the capitalist reality and human nature. hehe. it makes me wonder why telus paid so much for a citrix client intended to be run in an inherantly insecure os. 50,000 + cell tower network could come crumbling down like a house of cards because of a fucking scriptkiddie grade keylogger, that's too new for norton to pick up...
irony 4 u.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

g00p In reply to notRob [2007-01-25 12:43:40 +0000 UTC]

Hahahaha nice. Praise non use of proprietary security software

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

notRob In reply to g00p [2007-01-26 15:35:39 +0000 UTC]

it's true though. they are not even considering the possibility of the client computer being vulnerable...
windows is inherantly insecure...

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

g00p In reply to notRob [2007-02-09 17:42:06 +0000 UTC]

inherantly, nice word -

insecure, even better

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

notRob In reply to g00p [2007-02-10 00:27:43 +0000 UTC]

it's true. stock windows is so terribly insecure it's not funny. i would never use it for anything important. fedora or something pretty like that for desktop and only slackware for servers...

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

g00p In reply to notRob [2007-02-13 12:22:50 +0000 UTC]

servers i'd go with openbsd to be honest.

but yeah. winblows

👍: 0 ⏩: 0