| |||||||||||||
"Stable" kernel 2.6.25.7 released"Stable" kernel 2.6.25.7 releasedPosted Jun 18, 2008 14:13 UTC (Wed) by PaXTeam (subscriber, #24616)In reply to: "Stable" kernel 2.6.25.7 released by NAR Parent article: Stable kernel 2.6.25.7 released
i don't think i ever talked about malice, what i did say was dishonesty (they're not the same). dishonesty about having a commitment to the public yet doing something else behind the scenes. no bad ill is required for such behaviour, my *guess* is that it's normal human psychology: you don't need to deal with the problems you don't admit you have. just look at last week's LWN interview with Andrew Morton (he's fully aware of what's going on on the security lists) and how he downplays the problem of security bugs, almost as if they were on the verge of dying out because they're in fringe driver code and so rarely in core code. yeah, of course they're rare if they don't publish the security impact of those bugs. watch this quote: That being said, I have the impression that most of our "security holes" are bugs in ancient crufty old code, mainly drivers, which nobody runs and which nobody even loads. So most metrics and measurements on kernel security holes are, I believe, misleading and unuseful. of course said "metrics and measurements" are "misleading and unuseful" if the kernel devs falsify the input data.
(Log in to post comments)
"Stable" kernel 2.6.25.7 released Posted Jun 18, 2008 16:55 UTC (Wed) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] Sheesh. Dishonesty *implies* bad intent. If something is accidental or unintentional it's not dishonest. (Quibbling over the meanings of words only works if you know what the meanings of those words actually *are*.)
"Stable" kernel 2.6.25.7 released Posted Jun 18, 2008 17:47 UTC (Wed) by PaXTeam (subscriber, #24616) [Link] > (Quibbling over the meanings of words only works if you know what the > meanings of those words actually *are*.) hear hear brother! and let me help you out while i'm at it: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=malice . malice requires intent to harm another out of hostility, or something like that, you're the native speaker, i'm sure you can interpret it properly. now, the kernel devs did not actually want to do anything like that, they simply wanted to save face and look better in statistics, or so. that's not malice, only dishonesty (they did know what they committed to in Documentation/SecurityBugs and did violate that promise). > If something is accidental or unintentional it's not dishonest. strawman warning ;)! the suppression of security info in the commits we pointed out as such was neither accidental nor unintentional (nor malicious, just dishonest), so i have no idea what you're talking about.
"Stable" kernel 2.6.25.7 released Posted Jun 19, 2008 9:47 UTC (Thu) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] If you're not a native speaker, might I suggest *not* engaging in vast flamewars based solely on parsing fine details of the meanings of words? (Sheesh.)
|
|||||||||||||