Register says DFS is wrong... 687

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 00:49:02 -0500, DFS

That a stupid statement even by your standards. Do you seriously suggest the advisories are posted about only those same apps time and time again? Just those and no others? Also, has it ever occurred to you that those simpler, less commonly-used apps you so despise may not need huge amounts of reviewing or fixing, because there is less in them to go wrong?

Then why are you crowing about Linux's vulnerabilities, as they were inherently worse?

Yadda yadda yadda. The same tired yak, all over again. He means they don't get developed further. Doesn't mean they're not usable, should anyone need or want them.

You're stupid and prjudiced. There are highly intelligent Linux users and developers world-wide - they are not illiterate, you sneering fool. Many of them are more than capable of doing all of the above, with ease.

Bollocls. 'Ethically tainted is an OSS term. It usually refers to material being added, say in the form of a closed source binary module, to the kernel. You think because one person uses this trm, another isn't permitted to? How typical of you. Last I looked, the English language was Free for anyone to use

Ballocks. Not all Windows install run that fast, either. My own dual-booter doesn't, simply because it's a relatively modest (by today's standards) machine. A friend of mine has two PCs which run like lightening - but they are very powerful, and tuned up, with no extraneous services, etc.

Once again, you seem to buttume that everyone cares about speed. A lot of us don't - and that includes Windows users.

Your experience is not everyone's experience. And you are prejudiced.

You of course picked a very obscure kind of example. I've never seen error messages like this, and I suspect many others haven't.

Most error messages in Linux are far more informative than that.

You're a sneering, lying, ignorant idiot. All you can come up with is that nonsense. NOthing worth anything.

Are there? You doon't seem very certain. I thought you knew what you were doing.

Then again, it might not.

You keep harping on and on about the lack of quality in Linux apps. Yet you've yet to provide any evidence that this is so - hint: you're own opinion doesn't count.

If Linux apps are so bad, why did Novell want SUSE? Why are lots and lots of users happily enjoying their fine Linux apps? Answer: the apps are good, useful, stable, flexible, fun, and Free (as in freedom). They do what Linux users want them to do, without silly restrictions. And they are constantly getting better and better.

What you think is consistently wrong, prejudiced, lying and worthless.

-- Kier