Re: Mozilla/Firefox "PostScript/default" security problems
On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 10:39:08AM -0500, Alan Shutko wrote:
> Reid Priedhorsky <reid@reidster.net> writes:
>
> > 1. It was broken for some people.
> >
> > Fine, but Xprint is broken for me and now I can't print. I don't
> > think it's appropriate to remove a feature until its replacement is
> > stable and useable by everyone who could use the old feature.
>
> Personally, I don't think it's appropriate to remove a feature when
> its replacement is an over-engineered piece of crap which is slow,
> hardly bothers to interact with the rest of the OS. But that
> describes a lot of what the Mozilla project shovels out. Take heart,
> Xprint will probably start to be useful in a year or two.
Apparently it doesn't matter what upstream does, and it doesn't matter what
the users want. Bugs 256072 and 257985 have been merged, downgraded to
wishlist, and tagged wontfix by the maintainer with no further explanation.
<sigh>
I reiterate what I said in my posting to #256072... if Mozilla supposedly
has this horrific (but completely unsubstantiated) security flaw, where's
the DSA for Woody, the entries in the mozilla.org BugZilla, the CERT
advisory, the patches/changes from the other distributions, and, finally,
whyinhell is upstream still distributing it with direct printing turned on
in their own builds?
Or does the maintainer have another reason he'd like to promote?
Direct printing works for some people, and for others it doesn't. XPrint
works for some people, and for others it doesn't. XPrint is *not* an
arguably superior product, so why is that choice forced on people?
--
Marc Wilson | There's certainly precedent for that already too.
msw@cox.net | (Not claiming it's *good* precedent, mind you. :-)
| -- Larry Wall in <199709021744.KAA12428@wall.org>
Reply to: