Rudolf Polzer graced us by uttering:
>> I can't be sure that IrfanView doesn't.  But I don't use
>> IrfanView.  In any case, if IrfanView _does_ execute binary
>> code within a JPG file, it would (1) only work on
>> binary-compatible machines
> 
> No problem, IrfanView also only works on binary-compatible
> machines.

Yeah.  I did use it a few years ago, when I ran Win98.

> IMHO that is too much: remotely filling a hard drive.

Hai.

> Why didn't you take the RPM, check what it's doing (often these
> lamers use shell scripts for that) (especially the POSTINSTALL
> part), recompress and rename it and send it back to the idiot?

For one, he was an active and upstanding member of a prominent
programming channel, so I couldn't be sure if his motives were
bene- or malevolent.  It was my instincts that just said "No
thanks."

Also, at the time I had a very real problem involving my rpm
installation and vengeance simply didn't rate as high at the
time.  =)

Besides, IMO, if lamerz had a little less free time, they'd have
little patience for 14m3r2 themselves.

>> > And Windows does not have many flaws
>> 
>> Windows _does_ have flaws.
> 
> I meant security flaws.

Ah.  I see your point.

>> If there is any more integral part of Windows than Explorer
> 
> VMM32?

Smartass.  ;)

>> I've yet to have the pleasure of
>> removing it from my hard drive.
> 
> Which is really hard with the explorer.
> You can change the shell, but any program that has
> a file-open dialog will use the Explorer for that.

With Windows Explorer, yes.

But:

$ rm -rf /mnt/c/windows/system/vmm32*

;)

> But even worse about Windows:
> you cannot change the window manager.

Technically: no.
Effectively: /sbin/lilo && reboot

;)

Tim Hammerquist
-- 
We're not going to get robbed. All the people in jail like you.
    -- Sharon to husband Ozzy Osbourne