On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 11:36:09AM -0600, Marco Peereboom wrote: > You guys crack me up with this attitude.
> I am blaming myself though; for bringing up issues to ports attention. by "bringing up issues to ports attention", you mean you called for a revert on ports@, because you were so sure it was a problem with ff3. it's one thing to say, "hey guys, something is broken here. this isn't my area, can you help me? please, quickly?", and "revert this broken crap. we keep old shit all the time. not only is this broken, it just sucks." especially when your example of older software is totally and completely bogus (or are you telling us we'll have to drop support for some arches because a port got updated? are you telling us gcc2 has the same attack potential as ff?), within minutes of first saying anything was wrong you started making false claims (it crashes with https), and you continued to make false claims about ff in general. then when I asked if you wanted to keep ff2 and maintain it, you just ran off, making one last "no one gives a shit" slam. whose attitude is the joke here? -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
