Now, if I read the headline of Open Source dangers, followed by Article highlights danger of unpatched Freetype implementations, I think I would get the idea that the article in question was about Freetype. Or even, it was a general article that had specific examples of dangers in Freetype implementations. Or, at a real push, I'd expect to see something that discussed a specifically open source issue.
What I wouldn't expect is a general article reminding people that they should probably make sure they update their system regularly, and that applications that use system or other resources are reliant on those other software developers for some of their updates. I don't think I'd expect the article to only fleetingly mention Freetype in the same way as an article about fruit going off may mention grapefruits, bananas and peaches, in passing, as examples of fruit.
And I really really wouldn't expect such a transparently cynical dig at open source software to be the top story on MS Typo News. By the way, how is proprietary software safer, when you can't see the source and you can't fix a problem?
What I wouldn't expect is a general article reminding people that they should probably make sure they update their system regularly, and that applications that use system or other resources are reliant on those other software developers for some of their updates. I don't think I'd expect the article to only fleetingly mention Freetype in the same way as an article about fruit going off may mention grapefruits, bananas and peaches, in passing, as examples of fruit.
And I really really wouldn't expect such a transparently cynical dig at open source software to be the top story on MS Typo News. By the way, how is proprietary software safer, when you can't see the source and you can't fix a problem?
