8.04?

[Derek Broughton]

Dotan Cohen wrote:

> On 05/04/2008, Mario Vukelic <mario.vukelic at dantian.org> wrote:
>>
>> Several already reported, probably one of those:
>>  http://tinyurl.com/6bnk6u
>>  I see this issue, too.
> 
> Don't use tinyurl. How do I know it's not pointing to malware? Do you
> trust that tinyurl will stay in business for as long as that link is
> valid?

Huh?  I'll continue to use tinyurls.  They're more useful than
longer-than-one-line urls.  I don't care if they don't stay in use as long
as the link is valid - though the odds are that they will actually stay in
business _longer_ than most referenced links.

> Do you trust them not to deliberately or accidentally try to 
> pass on some malware en route to the site? 

Do I care?  I don't believe they can infect me.  More to the point, I don't
believe they can infect most of the people reading this group.

> Do you want them tracking you? 

They won't be tracking _me_ if I post a tinyurl...

> Do you want the link to be unaccessible when tinyurl is 
> performing updates or down for other reasons? 

Again, do I care?  Nobody uses tinyurl to point to their own sites, they use
them to reference citations.

> Is the increased latency and bandwidth necessary?

Is it _noticeable_?  
> 
> There are fifty more reasons not to use tinyurl. I will never click
> them. Post the url and be done with it.

Your loss.  There are fifty reasons not to do anything, but the arguments
against tinyurl and similar software are specious.
-- 
derek