Apparently Torvalds can still be praised for sitting two sides on the same argument. After all wasn't it Torvalds only a couple of months ago whom berated a security expert because they didn't have a fallback mechanism in their code from the start and said that enabling security fixes that inconveniences the user is bad and can lead to system crashes.
Now we have a security update with a fallback mechanism and that enabling it inconveniences the user for certain and does indeed crash many systems.. the sheer hypocrisy here... personally I believe most users don't actually care about security and that sometimes you have to push security on too users even if it inconveniences them somewhat. Naturally you still need the ability to revert or disable such security updates encase they do bork the system too, of course.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
