| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Ignoring SCOIgnoring SCOPosted Mar 10, 2003 23:07 UTC (Mon) by corbet (editor, #1)In reply to: SCO security advisory to zlib by ami Parent article: SCO security advisory to zlib We've had a couple of people suggest things like that - turn SCO into an undistribution or some such. I don't think that is the right approach for a news organization to take, though. And especially not with security alerts. It could well just make people wonder what else we're not telling them about. In any case, pretending they don't exist won't fix anything; better to keep a steady gaze on them, I think.
(Log in to post comments)
Ignoring SCO Posted Mar 11, 2003 5:10 UTC (Tue) by BrucePerens (subscriber, #2510) [Link] SCO exists, but they are persona non grata. And we have some wonderful surprises for them. Watch this space.Bruce
Ignoring SCO Posted Mar 11, 2003 8:45 UTC (Tue) by rjamestaylor (guest, #339) [Link] You ARE a tease!*sigh* my treatment to cure compulsive reloading of LWN.NET will have to wait another week. . . Seriously, the quicker this is resolved and the more drastic the resolution the better. Our own little "Shock and Awe", if you will.
Ignoring SCO Posted Mar 12, 2003 4:59 UTC (Wed) by Peter (guest, #1127) [Link] You ARE a tease! Yeah, what he said. the quicker this is resolved and the more drastic the resolution the better. Heh, I like that quote.
|
|
||||||||||||