Highly suspect, at least.
Also Uplay used to be buggy, but I haven't had any problems with it lately, and I do like their "micro-DLC" system as someone I know called it. You do stuff in the games (mostly just play them to completion, though there are usually one or two challenges you need to complete) and you can unlock stuff. Usually nothing major, I think AC2 had a wallpaper, some costumes, and an interesting DLC mission (that was probably the best reward I've seen from it), Watch_Dogs has an avatar, I think a wallpaper, and some unlockable items/a vehicle. I think Far Cry 3: Blood Dragon had a skin for your profile and some music, but I don't remember. It's a neat system that rewards you for actually playing your games more than just having achievements (which also exist), and I like it enough that I buy Uplay-native games on the Uplay platform instead of Steam because I like to support it and Ubisoft/Uplay haven't sufficiently pissed me off to avoid them.
There was some weirdness with my payment (their system double-charges you before revoking the second charge for whatever reason), but the guy on the phone was friendly enough (hour and a half queue though).
Likewise, OpenSSL is a huge mess. The folks at OpenBSD have a track record of doing shit right and making it very secure (some would say to a fault, but this is supposed to be core software used to secure nearly every web server on the internet, I don't think there's such a thing as "too secure"). Their philosophy is perfect for a project like this, and I think their OpenSSL fork, if it ever branches out from being OpenBSD-specific, will probably be a lot better than the original.
Obviously, forking has other uses, as well. Sometimes someone just wants to take the software in a different direction that's outside of the scope of the original project. That's perfectly fine. I don't know if he's implying that's a bad thing, but if he is, fuck that. He's wrong.
I agree with his overall philosophy that GNU/Linux has some good and some bad shit about it. That's to be expected, it's not perfect, and we absolutely do need to acknowledge the suckage. But forking is a good thing, not part of that suckage, and it pisses me off that he would even insinuate that it's a bad thing. Now, the fact that things so often get to the point where forking is necessary, that is most definitely suckage.
It was Bjarne himself who said that there are two kinds of programming languages: those everyone complains about, and those that nobody uses.
I'm sure that was said more or less as a joke, but it rubs me the wrong way. The basic suggestion here is that no language that reaches sufficient usage is going to be without its problems. That's fair, but I'm reading from it an implication that the criticism is purely due to its popularity, and that's not fair. There are a lot of problems with C++; some are fixable, some are too inherent in the design to be fixed. A lot of what could be fixed has been, and that's fantastic, but there's still plenty of room for legitimate criticism that has nothing to do with hating what's popular.
Regarding languages that "nobody uses," that doesn't necessarily say anything about their quality; some things just don't take off for whatever confluence of reasons. It remains to be seen whether D specifically will or will not, but from what I understand, it is very well-designed and avoids a lot of the design issues present in C++. That's really cool if true and I'm looking forward to seeing if those claims hold up.