Re: Is oldstable security support duration something to be proud of?

[Filipus Klutiero <chealer@gmail.com>]

Le March 10, 2008 04:23:07 pm Jim Popovitch, vous avez écrit :
> On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 4:14 PM, Filipus Klutiero <chealer@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Le March 10, 2008 03:15:04 pm Jim Popovitch, vous avez écrit :
> > > On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 3:01 PM, Filipus Klutiero <chealer@gmail.com> 
wrote:
> >  > > Le March 10, 2008 02:57:56 pm Jim Popovitch, vous avez écrit :
> >  > > > On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 2:36 PM, Filipus Klutiero
> >  > > > <chealer@gmail.com>
> >
> >  wrote:
> >  > >  > >  This statement is in a security announcement. Martin Schulze
> >  > >  > > confirmed that he wrote the statement. Does the security team
> >  > >  > > think that oldstable security support duration is something to
> >  > >  > > be proud of?
> >  > >  >
> >  > >  > Yes.
> >  > >
> >  > >  If you don't mind, how did you get the opinion of the security team
> >  > > on this?
> >  >
> >  > I read their text.
> >
> >  Which one?
>
> Their public one, the one you referenced.
Argh. If I'm asking about a statement, that's because I read it. Obviously, 
the author didn't bother checking whether he was right, which is why I'm 
asking whether there are some people that disagree.

> Why do you perceive that 
> they shouldn't be proud?  Where is your basis that they don't deserve
> to be proud?
I already explained this in the bug report.