More than half of Windows machines are INFECTED with malware

[Samuel Thurston, III]

On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 2:28 PM, Derek Broughton <derek at pointerstop.ca> wrote:
> Samuel Thurston, III wrote:
[snippety snip snip]
>> Wait wait wait.  Not this again. My argument was that they don't
>> contribute to the kernel.
>
> Fine - but the source you cited was not arguing that.  K-H argued that they
> don't contribute to the _community_, and then took a very short-sighted view
> of "community".
>

What Greg argues is different from the claim I made at the beginning,
however I feel that his data support my claim more solidly than his
own.

[snip snip]

> Scott is certainly the Ubuntu package maintainer, but I was under the
> impression he was the original developer.
>

Not the most authoritative source I know, but wikipedia disagrees.
Greg and Kay are credited with authorship.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Udev


[snip]
>  I don't think that
> it's in the spirit of Free software that a company should be compelled to go
> out and hire a kernel developer or 5 just because the company benefits from
> the kernel.

Nor am I suggesting that Canonical be compelled to do ANYTHING on my
sayso.  My whole point from the beginning was that by some people's
*coughRMScough* standards, Canonical could be construed as "more evil"
than Google.  And I only brought it up in the context of what a silly
conversation it is about whether Google, or Canonical, or any other
soulless anthropomorphized entity is or isn't evil. (except Microsoft
of course. everyone knows MS is evil.)

[snip snip]
>  I believe that the initial criticisms from Debian
> were sometimes unfair, but they were also heightened by the fact that Ubuntu
> just wasn't prepared to work in the same way as Debian.

Thank goodness for small blessings.  I don't know if you were ever a
Deb user, but remember when it was about 2 years between stable
releases?  It seems that some good things came out on both sides of
the relationship.