| |||||||||||||
Stable kernel 2.6.32.8Stable kernel 2.6.32.8Posted Feb 11, 2010 2:08 UTC (Thu) by mfedyk (guest, #55303)In reply to: Stable kernel 2.6.32.8 by PaXTeam Parent article: Stable kernel 2.6.32.8
> > They believe that if they did so, people would only apply the fixes
> > marked as security
> and they have presented exactly zero evidence for such a belief. not
There is always someone that dumb (using your term). Look at all of the unpatched windows boxes, or even the uproar over firefox 3.7, err I mean 3.6.37. Also look at the latest hack to get debian stable working for their purpose (I used debian for over 8 years and more than 50% of debian users use debian testing or sid)
Once you come down from your lofty ivory tower, you'll see the reality of the individual that believes they're right, no matter what anyone else thinks.
(Log in to post comments)
Stable kernel 2.6.32.8 Posted Feb 11, 2010 10:12 UTC (Thu) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
Hell, I ran into a Linux box recently at a friend's, on the Internet, running Red Hat 5.0. That's not RH*EL* 5.0 or Fedora 5.0, note: that's Red Hat 5.0. Genuine 1997 vintage 2.0.29-ish kernel and libc5 userspace IIRC, never upgraded. Said friend wasn't even aware it *could* be upgraded. And it was in use as a firewall.
So, no, this sort of thing is not unheard of in the least.
(I dislike automatic upgrades that you can't turn off, but automatic upgrades *by default* seem like a very good idea to me. People who don't know or care about security might be secure-by-default then.)
Stable kernel 2.6.32.8 Posted Feb 12, 2010 0:35 UTC (Fri) by PaXTeam (subscriber, #24616) [Link]
> Look at all of the unpatched windows boxes[...]
it seems you're confused. unlike binary Windows updates, the patches are not useful for end users but rather distro builders, sysadmins and other people maintaining their own kernel (for the better or worse, let's not digress into the costs/benefits of not being on latest -stable). they had better be competent at what they're doing.
|
|||||||||||||