On Wed, Jul 12, 2006 at 01:48:45PM -0600, Art Edwards wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 08, 2006 at 06:44:02PM -0400, Carl Fink wrote:
> > I run Stable on the servers I administer, but 100% of them have to use some
> > hand-compiled or backported software, or they'd be unusable.
> I really don't think that is
On Tuesday, 11.07.2006 at 17:59 -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> Dave Ewart wrote:
> >
> > OK, that's a reason to avoid PHP, *not* specificially a reason to
> > avoid Squirrelmail. Just because PHP may lead to insecure apps does
> > not mean that any particular PHP application is badly written
On Sat, Jul 08, 2006 at 06:44:02PM -0400, Carl Fink wrote:
> Let me start by saying that I basically agree with Ben.
>
> On Sat, Jul 08, 2006 at 03:12:04PM -0300, Ben Armstrong wrote:
>
> > In particular, no guarantees are made that the entire distribution
> > will be 100% release-critical bug-fr
Thanks for your response. See Below.
On Sat, Jul 08, 2006 at 03:12:04PM -0300, Ben Armstrong wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Art Edwards wrote:
> > Unless such core pieces as the debugging tool (ddd) and the data
> display tool
> > (xmgrace) are working, it is dishone
Dave Ewart wrote:
>
> OK, that's a reason to avoid PHP, *not* specificially a reason to avoid
> Squirrelmail. Just because PHP may lead to insecure apps does not mean
> that any particular PHP application is badly written, from a security
> point of view.
>
I agree. Based on the idea that squir
On Tuesday, 11.07.2006 at 09:49 -0300, Andre Carezia wrote:
> Dave Ewart escreveu:
>
> >> Maybe you should think about using better software (squirrelmail and
> >> bind are not secure enough for public servers, anyway :-))
> >
> > Can you provide some evidence to back up that remark?
>
> Sure.
Dave Ewart escreveu:
>> Maybe you should think about using better software (squirrelmail and
>> bind are not secure enough for public servers, anyway :-))
>
> Can you provide some evidence to back up that remark?
Sure.
Squirrelmail is written in PHP, a fast-development language not designed
wit
On Sunday, 09.07.2006 at 10:08 -0300, Andre Carezia wrote:
> Maybe you should think about using better software (squirrelmail and
> bind are not secure enough for public servers, anyway :-))
Can you provide some evidence to back up that remark?
Dave
--
Please don't CC me on list messages!
...
Carl Fink escreveu:
> The thing is, the Debian Project is set up to guarantee that Stable will
> never actually be usable. [...]
>
> I run Stable on the servers I administer, but 100% of them have to use some
> hand-compiled or backported software, or they'd be unusable.
Maybe you should think a
On Sat, Jul 08, 2006 at 07:47:46PM -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> Carl Fink wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 08, 2006 at 07:11:09PM -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> >>
> >>Really? I administer a number of servers and workstations. Currently,
> >>these are my backport needs:
> >
> >
> > Um, you just
Carl Fink wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 08, 2006 at 07:11:09PM -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
>>
>>Really? I administer a number of servers and workstations. Currently,
>>these are my backport needs:
>
>
> Um, you just agreed with me.
>
> [snip details]
>
Except that my *only* server backport need i
On Sat, Jul 08, 2006 at 07:11:09PM -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> Carl Fink wrote:
> >
> > The thing is, the Debian Project is set up to guarantee that Stable will
> > never actually be usable. If you want anything resembling current software,
> > you MUST use Unstable or Testing. That makes
Carl Fink wrote:
>
> The thing is, the Debian Project is set up to guarantee that Stable will
> never actually be usable. If you want anything resembling current software,
> you MUST use Unstable or Testing. That makes Testing the de facto "standard
> workstation distribution" for Debian.
>
> I
Let me start by saying that I basically agree with Ben.
On Sat, Jul 08, 2006 at 03:12:04PM -0300, Ben Armstrong wrote:
> In particular, no guarantees are made that the entire distribution
> will be 100% release-critical bug-free. All we can assure you is that
> packages have undergone "some degr
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Art Edwards wrote:
> Unless such core pieces as the debugging tool (ddd) and the data
display tool
> (xmgrace) are working, it is dishonest to pretend that the 64-bit version
> is ready for testing.
It seems your expectations for our "testing" distribu
15 matches
Mail list logo
