Les Mikesell wrote:
John Summerfield wrote:
Les Mikesell wrote:
John Summerfield wrote:
and I note that RH doesn't highlight security at all, that's I could
find in three clicks.
http://www.redhatmagazine.com/2007/04/18/risk-report-two-years-of-red-hat-enterprise-linux-4/
is possibly self-serving but seems pretty realistic to me.
My point, for those who seem to have missed it, is that on the others
security is considered a top goal and highlighted as such on the home
page. I similarly excluded FreeBSD because it's not highlighted as a
top requirement. I also excluded Debian - freeness drives the Debian
project, usability drives Ubuntu.
Agreed, but you have enough experience to know that good intentions and
strict attention to narrow goals don't produce the best results every
I didn't say anything about narrow goals, did I? Security is important
to all of those projects, but if you don't highlight the key goals of
your OS project, you aren't selling the project very well, and you will
probably miss those goals.
Just for laughs, I just checked out Windows XP & Vista. No statement,
but the emphases seem to me fun & coolness, and fixing its problems.
time. I'm much more comfortable with a project that recognizes that
unexpected security flaws may exist and has the ability to correct them
quickly than one that says that because an expert has looked over the
code, there can't be any security issues. You do need a balance, of
course and some tolerance for over-hype in project goals compared to
what is delivered.
I'm pretty happy with the security in RHEL's clones, but that still is
not the first amongst its goals. The driver in RHEL is the Enterprise.
Of course, security is important, but Red Hat Secure Linux would be a
very different product, wouldn't you think?
--
Cheers
John
-- spambait
1aaaaaaa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Z1aaaaaaa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
-- Advice
http://webfoot.com/advice/email.top.php
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375
You cannot reply off-list:-)
