On Sat, 09 Dec 2000 21:34:59 -0500, David Feuer
<David_Feuer@brown.edu> wrote:
>At 08:12 PM 12/9/2000 -0600, Rene wrote:
>>I think part of the problem is that there are other things labeled
>>DANGEROUS that actually do work fairly reliably (offhand, I'm thinking
>>off the IDE config stuff..). Perhaps it needs to explicitely say
>>'This is broken and is gauranteed to destroy your data. Do not use it'
>>
>>The 'DANGEROUS' label seems to suggest that it -may- destroy data, which
>>leads to the 'it won't happen to me' mentality.
>
>For what it's worth, I absolutely agree with this. I have the same
>impression when I just see the word "dangerous".
If this was a business, and we were knowingly distributing software
that was known to be dangerous, we would probably be risking legal
action.
Why are we distributing such severely broken software? Heck, we seem
reluctant to include reiserfs, a pretty high quality, supported file
system. And we continue to distribute this !@#$%... There must be some
strange agenda going on to limit the use of Linux.
john alvord
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Dec 15 2000 - 21:00:18 EST