Sid Vicious wrote: > Peter Lairo wrote: > >> dman84 wrote: >> >>> its not high on anyones priority list.. its futured too, unless >>> someone has time to work on it besides the assigned bug owner.. >> >> >> >> I thought there was a patch ready and waiting for this. I think it is >> being *deliberately* ignored because the Linux users in charge of the >> bug don't understand why it is important to windows users. :( >> > > > Wow, I never thought of this. If you *don't* want a bug fixed, just > take ownership of it, profess a patch is near, and then just let it die > on the vine. > > Brilliant!! >
Yep, that's just how they did the "remove netscape." deal. Though I'd say "sleazy" is a better description than "brilliant".
