www.digitalmars.com Home | Search | C & C++ | D | DMDScript | News Groups | index | prev | next
Archives

D Programming
D
D.gnu
digitalmars.D
digitalmars.D.bugs
digitalmars.D.dtl
digitalmars.D.dwt
digitalmars.D.announce
digitalmars.D.learn
digitalmars.D.debugger

C/C++ Programming
c++
c++.announce
c++.atl
c++.beta
c++.chat
c++.command-line
c++.dos
c++.dos.16-bits
c++.dos.32-bits
c++.idde
c++.mfc
c++.rtl
c++.stl
c++.stl.hp
c++.stl.port
c++.stl.sgi
c++.stlsoft
c++.windows
c++.windows.16-bits
c++.windows.32-bits
c++.wxwindows

digitalmars.empire
digitalmars.DMDScript

D.gnu - Thoughts on this?

↑ ↓ Alan West <alan alanz.com> writes:
I once installed LSB 2.0, I've just looked at the list of packages in 
LSB/DCC 3.0. My first thought (as with LSB 2.0) is that of a system's 
security:

No matter what operating system you use, with each extra piece of 
redundantly installed software, you increase that system's vulnerability 
to security threats.

Surely therefore a Linux Standard Base should be reduced to the bare 
minimum, depending only on the most essential of services, such as; the 
kernel, a shell, the C standard library, and maybe a service to install 
other packages. It certainly didn't ought to include a compiler, to me, 
that opens the scope even wider, allowing a much deeper attack.


Kris wrote:
 http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20051206-5698.html 

-- Alan
Dec 11 2005
↑ ↓ → Alan West <alan alanz.com> writes:
I wrote:
 I once installed LSB 2.0, I've just looked at the list of packages in 
 LSB/DCC 3.0. My first thought (as with LSB 2.0) is that of a system's 
 security:
 
 No matter what operating system you use, with each extra piece of 
 redundantly installed software, you increase that system's vulnerability 
 to security threats.
 
 Surely therefore a Linux Standard Base should be reduced to the bare 
 minimum, depending only on the most essential of services, such as; the 
 kernel, a shell, the C standard library, and maybe a service to install 
 other packages. It certainly didn't ought to include a compiler, to me, 
 that opens the scope even wider, allowing a much deeper attack.
 
 Kris wrote:
 http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20051206-5698.html 


My initial thought as a developer: The LSB enforces a base set of software packages and versions, which are to be installed/available amongst many GNU/Linux distributions. This allows a developer/packager to make installable pre-built software packages, with dependencies on a set of top level required/optional LSB components. For each supported processor architecture, one installer package can be built, targeting many different LSB conforming systems. Which is of most importance though? -- Alan
Dec 11 2005