A lot of users still use msn, and as a result uses spaces for casual blogging. If Microsoft is even anything close to caring, it would have done much better for those users. Instead now they are selling these users over to another company.
Your comments show a total misunderstanding of open source on your part.
Your point seems to be that we need to *trust* a person or a company before we *let* them join open source. And the trust should be perpetual. That is a darn big barrier. I doubt anyone is actually qualified.
I think Linus Torvalds once said it very well: "People don't need to trust me because of the GPL" (or sth to that effect). The GPL protects the copyrights of the contributors and makes sure it stays in the public domain forever. There is no requirement or need for a "trust" in the contributor (other than that the code he contributes does belong to him). For whatever reason, as long as the code is good with the appropriate license, we should welcome that.
Linux has long gone beyond 'us vs Microsoft'. Please let it go.
The article is talking about two things: developing virus (and sending crashdump to Microsoft) and attacking Microsoft.com. These are not the same thing.
And a crashdump containing virus does not mean it's the hacker that sent it. It could well be the victim. So while the speaker wants to say something entertaining, I wonder how truthful it actually is.
Slashdot Mirror
Why not just buy a coffee machine?
Right, or allow me to IPO myself and collect money. Yes I'll disclose my whereabouts from time to time by tweeter and foursquare.
I mean I can imagine, but is it really as dumb as it sounds?
A lot of users still use msn, and as a result uses spaces for casual blogging. If Microsoft is even anything close to caring, it would have done much better for those users. Instead now they are selling these users over to another company.
"We pay you for doing nothing, but if the alien invades you are the first to die."
"I was really not watching porn, it was just the virus that infected my geforce!"
blame the virus, you perverts!
I am sorry, you mean "sue them in the small claim court"?
Are you flying in circle on drugs or sth?
It's a toilet all right, but a very annoying one: you hear every flush coming from your friends' toilet as well.
I fail to see the logic. You don't have to use iphone on verizon, but how does it help iphone users if it's ATT exclusive?
iPhone on Verizon?
damn!
Yeah, WTF, 6% already?
On the contrary, most of Chinese think the government has not enough balls when it comes to diplomacy.
I imagine what would happen if some country came to US-claimed territory, grabbed one of its citizens and sent him to court.
They recently levied some random bullshit charges against Toyota as well
The first government that comes to mind isn't China.
Don't even mention who is the No.1 in waving embargo at countries it doesn't like.
US and Japan already teamed up. So I don't get what you think they can do.
Time to call up the Normandy!
1.1%? He didn't factor in the 100x Reality Distortion Field.
SCO is dead for good?
Mod the parent up. It's funny how certain folks try to down play a security hole like this just because it happens on Linux.
If the market leader isn't included in the review, I am wondering how worthy this report is.
At least I saw this sign in US airports.
Apple only had a history of asking police to bust a door at Palo Alto, not in Russia.
It's really 280 bytes for unicode. Look, I just doubled your monthly bill.
Your comments show a total misunderstanding of open source on your part.
Your point seems to be that we need to *trust* a person or a company before we *let* them join open source. And the trust should be perpetual. That is a darn big barrier. I doubt anyone is actually qualified.
I think Linus Torvalds once said it very well: "People don't need to trust me because of the GPL" (or sth to that effect). The GPL protects the copyrights of the contributors and makes sure it stays in the public domain forever. There is no requirement or need for a "trust" in the contributor (other than that the code he contributes does belong to him). For whatever reason, as long as the code is good with the appropriate license, we should welcome that.
Linux has long gone beyond 'us vs Microsoft'. Please let it go.
The article is talking about two things: developing virus (and sending crashdump to Microsoft) and attacking Microsoft.com. These are not the same thing.
And a crashdump containing virus does not mean it's the hacker that sent it. It could well be the victim. So while the speaker wants to say something entertaining, I wonder how truthful it actually is.