So you mean the kernel that every single Debian Wheezy box happens to run by default doesn't exist? okay.

The problem is that almost no one actually needs to run a public resolver.

Your ISP provides a DNS server to you that is recursive (usually), so they can use ACLs to make sure only their clients are using them.

Domain owners provide DNS servers that are authoritative, but only for their own domain, so it limits the scope of the problem as well.

The problem is when domain owners provide DNS servers authoritative for their domain, but -also- allowing other people to use them as public recursive servers. There's usually no reason for this other than the server administrator's competence.

There are legit uses for open recursors, you mention Google DNS and OpenDNS as an example. These guys have to use rate limiting and defeat the attacks themselves, there's no easy solution.

I see why you're confused. You took my post out of context at the very beginning. My first reply wasn't to you, it was to the AC seemed to be bitching about version numbers. If I had wanted to talk about Firefox bugs, I would've quoted you.

Obviously the bug reports in Bugzilla are real, nobody tried saying otherwise. You're making up points that I never even brought up so you can agree with yourself about them.

It cannot possibly be "obvious" that I'm white knighting Firefox because I'm not.

Do you suffer from severe memory loss? I mentioned it because you were talking about stability issues. I shared my experience because it was in stark contrast with yours, basing on the beta tester statement.

That's been at the same place since Firefox 4, right-click one of your active tabs.

No need to act like a complete idiot.

What I mean is that I haven't had Firefox crashes, profile corruption, bookmarks being lost, badly rendered pages, etc. You know, bugs. I had problems occasionally before, I haven't had them since FF4. When I get a bug, I file a bug report. It's not hard. I haven't had to do it for the past 14 versions, so that makes it hard to agree with someone who thinks the product is unusable and bug filled.

I'm not saying there are no bugs in Firefox because that's nonsense. I'm surprised even someone like you could think that.

Why not do that yourself, you're getting riled up for no reason. Go fat yourself up and sleep over it.

You're really taking this way too seriously if you think anyone is white knighting here.

I've quite honestly have had no bugs worth mentioning since about FF4, so I'm sorry I can't change your sentiment on that. I hope you file bug reports though, however long it takes for them to be fixed.

It gets tiring, obviously I don't get literally angry at this. I'm sorry if mommy still feeds you but that's not my case.

Agree with that, but most posts like these just comment about the version number and nothing else. A lot of them are quite serious about it too.

No, most of them are actually dead serious. And if it makes you mad I don't know what to say.

Which is better than the multiple security vulnerabilities that have yet to be encountered in the no name, piece of shit PDF viewers that no one wants to use.

How many of you stupid fucks still do not realize that Firefox's release cycle is the same as Chrome's? And that they have an enterprise version with slightly longer time between updates so that if you don't want the new features, you can have the security fixes?

No, but I've watched The Wire. Does that count? :)

So the course wasn't even fully designed yet, not a single fucking graduate has yet to come out of that university, and they ALREADY want them working on projects headed to one of the most hostile environment we're aware of?

What a bunch of clowns.

Whatever. I'm not here to argue which standard is stupid and which one isn't, just the fact that in C99 and above it works that way. Either way it's ridiculous trivia because most applications will have a return statement regardless of what standard you use.