Re: red worm amusement
For the last time: I am saying that apt-get install should not immediately
start a service, and it should not install the startup links in /etc/rc?.d.
I could give a rats @$$ about what is Debian's base system. Those aren't
installed with apt-get install anyway. I could give two $#1+$ about
whether or not an OS is secure out of the box. This is not a question
about OSes, it's a question about installing packages that install
Please don't try to steer me off course, and then say I keep changing
my position. It's simply not polite, and rather silly.
On Sun, Jul 22, 2001 at 06:05:18PM +1000, CaT wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 22, 2001 at 12:40:11AM -0700, Jacob Meuser wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 21, 2001 at 10:26:38PM -0800, Ethan Benson wrote:
> > > On Sat, Jul 21, 2001 at 09:02:54PM -0700, Jacob Meuser wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Oh, I guess anyone can say something like "Four years without a remote
> > > > hole in the default install!" on the internet, where anyone is free to
> > >
> > > that quote is pure marketing.
> > Marketing? OpenBSD has about as much of an adversising dept as does
> > Debian. None.
> You don't need a marketing department to practice the 'art' of marketing.
> > > they don't count the recent ftpd remote
> > > root hole in that `four years' because they stopped activitating ftpd
> > > in the default install of OpenBSD 2.7, which was released only a very
> > > short time before the hole was discovered.
> > And so the default install was not vulnerable to remote attacks. Like
> Debian's default install is not vulnerable to attacks either. Your point?
> CaT (email@example.com) *** Jenna has joined the channel.
> <cat> speaking of mental giants..
> <Jenna> me, a giant, bullshit
> <Jenna> And i'm not mental
> - An IRC session, 20/12/2000