oss-sec mailing list archives
Re: Re: Location of OS security audit reports
From: Solar Designer <solar () openwall com>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 14:45:10 +0300
On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 02:28:03PM +0300, Mark Kipyegon wrote:
Apologies if my question is off topic. Wouldn't an OS targeting a specific group have the risk of fragmenting globally accepted standards?
Thank you for mentioning this may be off-topic. I think yes, this discussion thread got off-topic. Can we please wrap it up, unless someone has something on-topic to add. What the Subject says is on-topic, but content of the messages no longer reflects that. :-( Alexander
Current thread:
- Location of OS security audit reports M.T. Roebuck (Nov 16)
- Re: Location of OS security audit reports Joshua Rogers (Nov 16)
- Re: Location of OS security audit reports M.T. Roebuck (Nov 19)
- Re: Location of OS security audit reports Nguyen Cong (Nov 17)
- Re: Location of OS security audit reports M.T. Roebuck (Nov 19)
- Re: Re: Location of OS security audit reports Tracy Reed (Nov 19)
- Re: Re: Location of OS security audit reports Nguyen Cong (Nov 19)
- Re: Location of OS security audit reports M.T. Roebuck (Nov 20)
- Re: Re: Location of OS security audit reports Niklas Kielblock (Nov 20)
- Re: Re: Location of OS security audit reports Mark Kipyegon (Nov 20)
- Re: Re: Location of OS security audit reports Solar Designer (Nov 20)
- Re: Location of OS security audit reports M.T. Roebuck (Nov 19)
- Re: Location of OS security audit reports Joshua Rogers (Nov 16)
- Re: Location of OS security audit reports M.T. Roebuck (Nov 20)
- Re: Location of OS security audit reports M.T. Roebuck (Nov 20)
- Re: Location of OS security audit reports M.T. Roebuck (Nov 20)
- Re: Re: Location of OS security audit reports Joshua Rogers (Nov 20)