On Thu, 2003-07-17 at 17:12, Ed Wilts wrote: > It's known as open source. Microsoft-like domination can not exist.
Of course not, in theory, and as long as the average Linux user remains as tech savvy and eagle-eyed as most are now. In practice, as Microsoft proved, a huge percentage of people accept the "default" when installing anything. So if a particular distro were to become widespread on desktops, the potential is there for abuse because the average person isn't going to necessarily know enough not to use the default. > $ rpm -qi up2date > > This will tell you that up2date is licensed under the GPL. Feel free to > request the source. I expect it to be on your sources CD or you can use > up2date to pull the src rpm down. OK, that's the kind of answer I was after... if up2date is not proprietary to RH that's good. I'll have to have a look at the source for grins. :) > and has it been scrutinized for security/privacy holes? > > Probably but we don't know to what detail by people outside of Red Hat. > By the same token, you don't know what level of scrutiny has been > performed on the rest of the packages. Well... most of the Linux software in common use has been examined pretty thoroughly by developers and users of all distros. The community seems to be very diligent in uncovering potential sources of security or privacy issues. But since presumably up2date was developed specifically by and for RH as opposed to the community at large, and since the software is used explicitly to communicate with RH, I thought it was worth asking about it specifically. I'm not asking in an accusing way at all; I don't think RH is out to spy on anybody, only that the potential may there for others to abuse their technology. --Lee -- What The...? http://www.what-the.com -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
