11 Feb
2017
11 Feb
'17
20:31
On 2/11/17 12:18 PM, nicholas wrote: > On Friday, 10 February 2017 17:17:15 CET Bruce Ferrell wrote: >> On 02/10/2017 02:19 PM, nicholas wrote: >>>>> And Roy Schestowitz is kind of a known troll who hates SUSE. >>>>> >>>>> Ciao, Marcus >>>> Is the report accurate? If so, does it matter if he hates SUSE? >>> 1 - that opensuse news was hacked - yes its all over the internet since at >>> least (CIO 07-02-2017) >>> 2 - that it was hush hush - no [see 1] + techrights article dated >>> 09-02-2017 + see richard brown interview >>> 3 - the "a known troll who hates SUSE" comment makes no assertion as to >>> the >>> validity of the article. there is therefore no correspondence between >>> "acurate and hates suse" so your question doesnt make any sense. >>> 4 - does slander based on conjecture of a hypotheticle strike you as >>> accurate? "If someone injected a back door inside SLED and SLES, SUSE >>> would probably say not a thing, only belatedly removing it and then lying >>> about the whole thing, just like Microsoft does". >>> >>> did you even read the comment made, or the techrights article before you >>> wrote this? >> Yes, the Techrights article IS the one I saw of February 9, 2017. No, I did >> NOT see the breach mention on ANY OpenSUSE lists (I monitor several) and >> wondered and had it on my agenda to ask about it when I had a few moments. >> >> Nicholas, since you're "simply a user", why so heated in both your >> responses to me and vehemence over all. I too am "just a SUSE user" since >> SUSE 7.x since before the stupid Novell/MS deal. >> >> I'm also an IT professional with over 30 years experience. Modern standard >> operating practice is to publicly and officially acknowledge such breaches. >> Seeing an announcement on a third party site of a breach with NO >> announcements here, even if rapidly corrected, struck me as odd at best and >> possibly false. >> >> The "heat" seen on these lists when the breach was asked about, starts >> looking like bunker mentality. And that raises the curiosity level even >> higher... Was the article inaccurate? Was it a troll? Why are official >> channels NOT making an announcement? All bringing credibility of all >> parties into question. So I asked... And got even MORE heat! So did >> others. >> >> Marcus, I DO appreciate you taking the time to make the simple statement >> that it did happen, what happened and that no significant information was >> compromised. It's a thankless job. > my response is to the style, content and basis of your "arguments", > - tying the simple fact of the attack to the "truth" of wider accusations > without foundation given in techrights. (the article has zero journalistic > credability) > - your constant exaggerations. (who are the OTHERS who have recieved HEAT for > asking questions?, a website DEFACEMENT is NOT a BREACH, saying my 2 messages > are a "continuing effort to discount any comments" from suse) > - your constant wink wink style accusations. > > my vehemence comes from a distinct dislike for unfounded deformations. > > you could have avoided this by presenting: > a) direct questions to establish the facts (e.g. why was the story not > published on mailing lists) > b) your direct opinion on how the event should have been handled > c) any accusations/denunciations based on facts and evidence (i dont count a > shit throwing article by a known troll as evidence). > > i really dont want to waste any more time on this. > > Disingenuous at best Nicholas. Tone argument responses are by definition trolling and yes, you've wasted more time and bandwidth for everyone than was necessary for your trolling. go away -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org