[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [debian-devel] Status of mICQ code audit

On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 07:25, Drew Scott Daniels wrote:
> I wouldn't call it malicious, but I question the use of the word "harmful".
> It should have been replaced, attributed or removed. I wondered about it
> at the time but didn't comment as the article had already been released.
> But maybe it can still be updated (just the web version?)? I've cc'd the
> DWN to see if this is possible.

I oppose this.  Changes to a magazine or newspaper are performed by printing a 
correction or retraction in a later issue, not by attempting to un-publish 
the article in question.

If there is a consensus of opinion that the current article in DWN about this 
is lacking in some way then another article should be published with further 

> I wouldn't call disabling the use of the program and telling the user why
> harmful.

Harmful to Debian even if possibly not harmful to the user.  This could be 
clarified in the next DWN article on the topic (now that Rudi has started the 
debate again another DWN article is probably due anyway).

http://www.coker.com.au/selinux/   My NSA Security Enhanced Linux packages
http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/  Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/postal/    Postal SMTP/POP benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/  My home page

Reply to: