Who remembers the combination to the safe?
It's on a piece of paper locked up securely in the second safe.
Really? I don't use Google Apps but I don't think the act of fixing a bug in any way raises questions about the overall concept any more than Microsoft fixing a bug in Sharepoint would raise questions about closed source Windows services, or fixing a bug in KnowledgeTree would raise questions about similar open source services.
Software application has bug; bug gets fixed. Jesus people, why is this different from any other similar bug being fixed? Oh, it's Google, better get blogging.. Gotta get those ad impressions up.
Besides, what happens when someone combines this with, say, a flash vulnerability and causes a machine inside your network to send the attack e-mail to your Exchange server? Postfix isn't going to do a damn thing about that.
Just patch the fucking server.
The EU competition court has put a stop to that one and this is also how Samba got all the M$ protocol interface documentation.
Yeah, and maybe in 2009 they'll ship a product that will emulate an environment released NINE YEARS AGO. Not trying to be flamebait but really, Samba4 is pretty much a complete irrelevance these days. Samba3 was awesome back when I was using it... years and years ago.
As far as contributing to Wikipedia is concerned, it doesn't matter whether a piece of information is true or not. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth
That's what they say. Reality suggests otherwise. You are aware that there are entire communities on the web that exist to do nothing more than create their own realities using Wikipedia? I could point you to hundreds of huge, interwoven articles on the site that are utter fabrications. Biographies, languages, inventions, tecnhologies... All being served under the noses of the Wikipedia admins as "Wikitruth", some last longer than others. Most of the larger article subjects have been actively updated and improved over periods of years. Don't fool yourself that Wikipedia is in any way trustworthy. It's a playground for trolls.
I would imagine it simply continues the NT naming conventions:
NT5 (Windows 2000)
NT5.1 (Windows XP)
NT7 (windows 7)
la la la la laaaa
this is both a test and a waste of time