This seems to be a case where what was said was not necessarily what was meant. The idea that the spokesperson seemed to be making is that in order to update software, you need to accept the Privacy Agreement. Pretty much every software/service company does this. But if the client never updates their software, then it becomes obsolete and will not work with any external sources that change in a way that prevents legacy communication. That's the nature of legacy products. Not agreeing to the updated terms has unintended, but unavoidable consequences that are inherent in legacy products.

If someone has bad genes just give them a pair of Levi's.

Damn Stigler's law of eponymy.

I know all of you are concerned about Net Neutrality and would like to submit your claims on our site, but someone decided to attack us when you visited our site. Oh, you want evidence of the hack? Sorry, we cannot provide that. But rest assured, it will be prevented in the future. Oh, you want to know how we will prevent it? Well, that's a secret too. Oh, you don't think it actually happened? No, it did. Don't worry.

You shouldn't use outdated standards. I thought this was already decided. Let me go update my router so that it'll fix a bug in WEP. That'll make it secure.

Yeah, I mixed up GPL with GNU. Braindead moment. Nevertheless, you've completely failed to recognize the fundamentals of Etomolgy and fail to account for the fact that the general populace doesn't care about the distinguishing factor of the kennel versus the GNU components when referring to the OS and has opted to call the OS by the kennel name. You, my friend, are one of the very rare individuals who calls it what no one else does.

Yes, I'm aware of what GNU stands for and I'm aware of Richard Stallman's contributions, and I'm aware of the fact that Linux was originally not under the GNU license. However, you seem to be under the impression that people refer to the Linux OS as the GNU OS. I have never, in my years in the open source community, heard someone call the OS GNU. I've heard people call it GNU/Linux, or just Linux, but never GNU. In fact, if you research it, every major distribution, news source, certificate name, etc indicates it's called Linux. There's even a Wikipedia article about this argument and yet even then, no one is calling it GNU, they're either calling it GNU/Linux or just Linux.

To be honest, not much of a difference in this case. When someone epically falls on multiple accounts with their response to horrendous bugs, I'd consider them to be the 'lamest vendor' Your post is overrated in that you're distinguish between something that has very little difference in this case.

ROFLMAO, are you serious? You're arguing semantics over the use of a plural of the decade between 1960 and 1969? I'm sorry, if you can't understand common vernacular, then let me inform you Most English speaking people use plural decades to approximate a period of time within a decade. So for instance, if someone says that Unix was created in the 60's, they do not mean that the creation happened multiple years of the decade, but that it occurred during that period. IE, they are not using the 's to denote plurality, but of ownership.

I'm sorry, GNU is a licensing framework, the GNU C Compiler was built with the GNU license, and was later used to create the Linux kernel as a GNU licensed replica of Unix. There FTFY.

Exactly the point I was attempting to make, but you did a better job pinpointing it. Pretty much telling the Open Source community that a primary Open Source technology exists, and what it is, seems to be useless.

LOL, I suppose you're right. That's really ironic.... You just made my day. If I had mod points right now, and it didn't require me deleting my posts, I'd +1 funny your comment.

You could, but my entire point was to illustrate that Linux spawned as a replica of Unix, which most people know. I was emphasizing the history to bring about the point that the description of FreeBSD was entirely uninformative to the general populous of ./ users. Why mention that Linux was not the only free open-sourced OS, when its history pertains to another free open-sourced OS.

"Linux is not the only free open-source operating system." LOL, yes we know. If anyone here knows about Linux, they SHOULD already know about Unix. FreeBSD came out in 1993 and was essentially a fork from 386BSD, another Unix OS. Linux was a kernel built to replicate Unix in 1991, but Unix has been around since the 60's in one form or another.