| |||||||||||||
"Protected" -- for how long?"Protected" -- for how long?Posted Apr 24, 2009 14:50 UTC (Fri) by hppnq (guest, #14462)In reply to: "Protected" -- for how long? by dersteppenwolf Parent article: The details on loading rootkits via /dev/mem
Even though in this very first sentence you reveal that 1) you do not understand the Linux kernel development process, 2) you do not understand the Red Hat business model and 3) you did not understand my comment, you still managed to surprise me with the rest of your comment.
(Log in to post comments)
"Protected" -- for how long? Posted Apr 27, 2009 17:36 UTC (Mon) by dersteppenwolf (guest, #58226) [Link]
You are right, I don't really understand the business model behind Red Hat. It's quite a challenging thing to understand how a corporation gets away with making a profit from the work of helpful and altruist volunteers world-wide.
And in a similar path of reasoning, I don't understand how Linux (especially 2.6) could end up being used in a corporate environment. With all due respect, it's a theme park version of an operating system core. The rollercoaster gives you a huge thrill, but you throw up anyway.
Regarding your comment, It was indeed pretty awesome, man.
"Protected" -- for how long? Posted Apr 27, 2009 23:58 UTC (Mon) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
Thus speaks someone who's never seen high-end financial software used to
throw umpty-trillions around the world.
Believe me, Linux is a glittering icon of perfection next to most of
"Protected" -- for how long? Posted Apr 28, 2009 3:07 UTC (Tue) by dersteppenwolf (guest, #58226) [Link]
Thanks for giving me cancer. Can we get back to discussing why Linux is flawed because their developers choose it to be that way? Even goddamn Vista is safer at the moment. That's kind of a shame.
|
|||||||||||||