Re: crypto patch
>>>>> "Adam" == Adam Shand <larry@alaska.net> writes:
>> Probably not. Beside the crypto laws, there is also the DSFG
>> that debian adheres to, and many of the encryption schemes have
>> patents on them, thus makeing them non-free, and not in debian
>> by default.
> oh yeah, i forgot about that ... still there are some that are
> patent unencumbered aren't there?
Yep, there are those that are distributed with the kernel-int patch
that's distributed in non-US. I'm guessing that since the crypto
patch isn't actually part of the actual kernel source, people would be
hesitant to put it in by default. Who knows, maybe some other
distirbution does? Bastille Linux?
>> If you're really hard core about security and encryption (and
>> I'm going to be heretical here, but hey, I have to plug my
>> home), try OpenBSD. Since it's main repository is in Canada,
>> US crypto laws don't apply. I played with it a bit, but not
>> enough to really get to know the advantages. Well, except for
>> the ports. I wish GNU/Linux would have something like that.
>> cd /ports/<program>. make. Automatic download, compilation,
>> installation. No though required...
> yeah open bsd is nice, but i much prefer apt to the ports
> collection. before apt showed up i was almost tempted to switch
> to open/freebsd because the ports tree is so nice. the bummer
> about the ports tree is that can't clean up after itself as well
> as a binary package can, and my experience with freebsd is that
> the dependencies aren't handled nearly as well as debian handles
> them.
> and if you want to compile them there's always 'apt-get
> --compile source packagename'. if you haven't used it before
> here's how it works :)
> adam.
I've never actually compile using apt-get. I've gotten source
though. Thanks for the info. Now that you mention it, I agree that
clean up is a lot easier with packaging, dpkg especially. Probably
why I'm still using debian. :)
Marshal
Reply to: