Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org>
Newsgroups: alt.comp.os.windows-11,comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic
 terms
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2025 22:37:52 +1100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 35
Message-ID: <vphlme$125qn$1@dont-email.me>
References: <q9h3rj1j2uj8t08okekkqpuu3eul30f4pa@4ax.com>
 <H5msP.1310$e6J1.263@fx47.iad>
 <_VidnePYj72dpy_6nZ2dnZfqn_SdnZ2d@supernews.com>
 <FHssP.422382$z8ke.109144@fx15.iad> <m1f46vF70ugU5@mid.individual.net>
 <20250217193414.9e5a91ad3b0cf94444e3a693@g{oogle}mail.com>
 <m1he21FhpfoU1@mid.individual.net>
 <20250220151606.501e1db1c2dd4f054a3448ad@g{oogle}mail.com>
 <m1pfrfFoe16U2@mid.individual.net>
 <vp87je.6qk.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net> <vp9k90$3blja$1@dont-email.me>
 <lkvgrjt4bmt336hvl4f4l7hpkm71berttg@4ax.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2025 12:37:50 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="8ca94ec7f1cc1ce2647f800d1fe6b46f";
	logging-data="1120087"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19PCGz7kNi5bTzymhJdEiYF"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:128.0) Gecko/20100101
 Firefox/128.0 SeaMonkey/2.53.20
Cancel-Lock: sha1:VSIz+Ra73+NZDxg76rOYhLpjfkE=
In-Reply-To: <lkvgrjt4bmt336hvl4f4l7hpkm71berttg@4ax.com>
Bytes: 2959

On 22/02/2025 12:26 am, Joel wrote:
> Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote:
>> On 21/02/2025 7:42 am, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>> rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> I've been on both sides of the fence. When current software wouldn't
>>>> install/run on my Windows 7 box it became a Linux box.
>>>
>>>     I think this calls for a famous quote from a newsgroup, a long, long
>>> time ago:
>>>
>>> Supported, known to work                -> warm fuzzies all around
>>> Supported, known to not work            -> an <redacted>ite is in trouble
>>> Unsupported, known to work              -> lucky today, unlucky tomorrow?
>>> Unsupported, not known to not work      -> there but for the grace of Turing
>>> Unsupported, known to not work          -> no, it was not deliberate ;-)
>>>
>>> [Hi Rick!]
>>>
>> Hmmm! Is that, sort of, like Iraq War??
>>
>> There are Known Knowns.
>> There are Known Unknowns.
>> There are Unknown Knows, and,
>> There are Unknown Unknows!!
>> c. Early 1990, so GW Bush Snr or his Defence Boss. ;-P
> 
> 
> That was in 2003 or later, Sec. Rumsfeld regarding the invasion of
> Iraq under GWB, not the elder Pres. Bush in the '90s.
> 
Ah!! Sorry! I was thinking of the wrong war!! ;-(

-- 
Daniel70