2 ms·
It's not FUD. Your comment is FUD. The fact is that MS has well tested security patches sitting on their hard drives for software used by lots of people, which
by rando289 11y ago
It's not FUD. Your comment is FUD. The fact is that MS has well tested security patches sitting on their hard drives for software used by lots of people, which they are only selling for prices so high that 99.9% of people won't get it. That is completely different than deciding not to write the patches. And it's also just pointing out another instance of proprietary software and why it's bad, which if that is fud, well the core of linux and gnu are fud too.
- johncolanduoni 11y ago> MS has well tested security patches How do you know this? I find it likely that they tested them for the specific use cases of the 0.1% who are actually going to receive the patches, since they are providing a specialized solution. > And it's also just pointing out another instance of proprietary software and why it's bad, which if that is fud, well the core of linux and gnu are fud too. You can want to use free software for some things without thinking proprietary software is bad for everything.
- rando289 11y ago> use cases of the 0.1% who are actually going to receive the patches It seems highly unlikely. They are not writing custom ordered security patches. They are selling general security support to whoever can afford it.