| |||||||||||||
Read the followup by pagexecRead the followup by pagexecPosted Jun 12, 2011 13:14 UTC (Sun) by mingo (subscriber, #31122)In reply to: Read the followup by pagexec by spender Parent article: Quotes of the week
BTW while you all were busy spouting nonsense, I just backported a couple security fixes that didn't make it into -stable. In the one case, it made it into .39-stable but was left out of .32-longterm. Oh, and the fixes were all months old. But hey, forget objective evidence, here talking out of your ass about how people are running kernels that have all the bugs fixed is king, so suit yourselves. You make a quite elementary mistake of logic here: why do you assume that -stable backports are perfect? It's a human process and human processes are never perfect. Our argument is that adding CVEs to change-logs and treating security bugs differently from other bugs is counter-productive, for all the reasons we outlined. You never addressed that simple argument heads on in this thread - and i submit that you cannot.
(Log in to post comments)
|
|||||||||||||