RE: SP2 is killing me. Help?

["joe" <mvp () joeware net>]

> And as for backwards compatibility, OSS software 
> generally doesn't have to worry about backwards 
> compatibility, the source is advailble, so most 
> of the time it's possible to make it work. Oh, 
> and I find wine on linux offers better than M$, 
> for my needs.
 
You talk throughout your email about many people at home and then also
insert this gem into it... So it is ok if you break older functionality if
you supply the source? What on earth for? So someone can change it to make
it work again for themselves? Does this apply to even a majority of the OSS
users let alone masses of home users? 

Most people wouldn't know a compiler if it bit them on the little toe. Even
if they had, the vast majority can't figure out how to protect themselves
from things they should have been able to protect against for a while now
with firewalls and such yet you figure they can go into some OS c code and
tweak it to fit themselves better?

I thought we had gotten past the idea that having source so you can modify
it to make it work for your particular instance was such a huge benefit.
This is a tremendous nightmare for source control and patching and
ultimately security. Having source to look at to see what it is doing is a
good thing, having source so you can modify it to suit your needs is less
so. 

 joe



-----Original Message-----
From: full-disclosure-admin () lists netsys com
[mailto:full-disclosure-admin () lists netsys com] On Behalf Of ktabic
Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2004 12:22 PM
To: full-disclosure () lists netsys com
Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] SP2 is killing me. Help?

On Tue, 2004-08-17 at 10:33 -0300, James Tucker wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 12:52:53 +0000, ktabic <lists () ktabic co uk> wrote:

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html