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

Re: Another Non-Free Proposal

> > On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 11:28:20AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> > > We don't provide security support for non-free, to my knowledge.

On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 09:52:47AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Not at the level of main.

On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 08:37:28AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> At what level *do* we provide it?

At the level of non-free, duh.

Or: if I understood the problem you were trying to solve, I could probably
give you a more pertinent answer.

> > However, we can be fairly confident that a DD won't introduce a
> > deliberate security flaw into non-free.
> How much does that really buy us?  Isn't that kind of a cold comfort?

Us as developers?  Or us as users?

For contrast, I can go out to apt-get.org, poke around at the resulting
archives, and find a guy who has a "warez" directory sitting beside his
debian stuff.  I don't *know* that he is doing anything unethical, but I'm
just a touch uneasy about installing anything I download from his site.

> It didn't take the introduction of deliberate security flaw into main to
> disrupt this entire project[1], resulting in a loss of services to the
> developers that still hasn't been completely rectified, and probably
> won't be[2].

Yeah, things could be worse.

> You can perhaps be forgiving for not noticing this event, given the
> extent of your level of participation in the Project[3].

Um... I've been hit by that outage too.  And I am reasonbly certain you
know that because you posted a reply to my message which mentioned that.

However, I suppose you're not engaging in ad hominem because technically
you didn't present a logical argument.


Reply to: