At this rate they'll have to start charging for them, or atleast per scan. Maybe they can put one of them new spangled one dollar coin slots in them. No wait, that owuld choke my 56k out, nevermind. Just get UPC's on our credit cards. Wait, if you have to pay for before use, then that wouldn't work either. Uhm, why not just save some money by not hiring lawyers and snoopers to check sites about the CueCat and just leave open sourcing alone.
P.S. If you fold your toilet paper over 3 times to wipe your ass, I think you should know my lawyer boy will be in touch with you, I own that idea. We'll be in touch.
Yes, it was VERY unfair to have Linux running without the latest and greatest patches. That's all I have to say about that. This guy makes that point very well: http://slashdot.org/users.pl?op=userinfo&nick=Coda
However, the question is:
"They claim that `enterprise businesses would not want to apply 21 individual fixes' and `most large companies would prefer the one large, sweeping-in-scope, fix'. Do they have a point?"
Clearly, ZD Net wants Billy in bed, if they aren't already. It's so see through, the ZD Net reply was making me laugh, " one large, sweeping-in-scope, fix " Why don't you just say NT, dumbasses!? Furthermore, if they didn't want to apply 21 fixes to Red Hat Linux, they didn't care about security. Linux is swiss cheese by default. Takes a lot of time and work.
NT is for those with little time and the lazy. For now, I love my NT box. Can't wait for Linux to get up to speed.
Ouch, probably didn't earn any Karma (or whatever it is) with that one.
Slashdot Mirror
At this rate they'll have to start charging for them, or atleast per scan. Maybe they can put one of them new spangled one dollar coin slots in them. No wait, that owuld choke my 56k out, nevermind. Just get UPC's on our credit cards. Wait, if you have to pay for before use, then that wouldn't work either. Uhm, why not just save some money by not hiring lawyers and snoopers to check sites about the CueCat and just leave open sourcing alone.
P.S. If you fold your toilet paper over 3 times to wipe your ass, I think you should know my lawyer boy will be in touch with you, I own that idea. We'll be in touch.
Yes, it was VERY unfair to have Linux running without the latest and greatest patches. That's all I have to say about that. This guy makes that point very well: http://slashdot.org/users.pl?op=userinfo&nick=Coda
However, the question is:
"They claim that `enterprise businesses would not want to apply 21 individual fixes' and `most large companies would prefer the one large, sweeping-in-scope, fix'. Do they have a point?"
Clearly, ZD Net wants Billy in bed, if they aren't already. It's so see through, the ZD Net reply was making me laugh, " one large, sweeping-in-scope, fix " Why don't you just say NT, dumbasses!? Furthermore, if they didn't want to apply 21 fixes to Red Hat Linux, they didn't care about security. Linux is swiss cheese by default. Takes a lot of time and work.
NT is for those with little time and the lazy. For now, I love my NT box. Can't wait for Linux to get up to speed.
Ouch, probably didn't earn any Karma (or whatever it is) with that one.