Christian Biesinger wrote:
> Peter Lairo wrote:
>
>> I think it is being *deliberately* ignored because the Linux users in
>> charge of the bug don't understand why it is important to windows
>> users. :(
>
>
> Could you explain why it is?
>
> I see it this way: The PW protection is of cours
And it came to pass that Sid Vicious wrote:
> Christian Biesinger wrote:
>> Peter Lairo wrote:
>>
>>> I think it is being *deliberately* ignored because the
>>> Linux users in charge of the bug don't understand why it
>>> is important to windows users. :(
>>
>>
>> Could you explain why it is?
Christian Biesinger wrote:
> Peter Lairo wrote:
>
>> I think it is being *deliberately* ignored because the Linux users in
>> charge of the bug don't understand why it is important to windows
>> users. :(
>
>
> Could you explain why it is?
>
> I see it this way: The PW protection is of cours
Christian Biesinger wrote:
> Could you explain why it is?
I (and *many* others) already have exhautively and repeatedly explained
why a PW makes sense for many users.
Go see the relevant posts here and bugs if you are truly interested in
seeing why your oppinion is erroneous, one-sided, and de
Peter Lairo wrote:
> I think it is
> being *deliberately* ignored because the Linux users in charge of the
> bug don't understand why it is important to windows users. :(
Could you explain why it is?
I see it this way: The PW protection is of course worthless. Anybody
really wanting to access
dman84 wrote:
> its not high on anyones priority list.. its futured too, unless someone
> has time to work on it besides the assigned bug owner..
I thought there was a patch ready and waiting for this. I think it is
being *deliberately* ignored because the Linux users in charge of the
bug don'
