I thought it was interesting? It's not even like the author himself came here and put it in front of you. I can send you some links with much more comprehensive displays of vacuousness on the internet if you need some solid targets.
Call me a dick if you like, but I'd love the web to contain a little middleground between mindless listicles and sentences like "Technically, the errors above come from ksh, when execve fails because there’s no room left in the new process to copyout argv."
I know what those words mean, I'm doubly-sure Ted does, and I'm sure it'd be a far better post if he spent another thirty words on the issue.
And I'd love the web if people could provide criticism without overwhelming amounts of sarcasm and put downs. We can't always get what we want.
You're post easily could have said something along the lines of Interesting subject matter, but I would appreciate the article more if it either contained more technical details on the issue, or provided more context around the issue itself and it's implications.
Just because there's a comment section doesn't mean you can't comment. You can read James Hague's thoughts on the matter here: http://prog21.dadgum.com/57.html
If the first words I see when I arrive on a site are "guest" and "flak," and then there's a misleading headline, and the seventh through ninth word in the post itself is "OpenBSD install kernels" with no further explanation as to what that is then I reserve the right to express both a local and global observation regarding the quality of the information as presented.
I'm amused that this is downvote central but turning a valid observation into a slightly lighter shade of beige isn't refuting my argument.
CmdrTaco used to provide a transitional sentence or two, and that's what made sites that look just like OpenBSD Journal actually have appeal and usefulness. Has the internet forgotten this lesson too?