|
Archives
D Programming
DD.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?
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 Dec 11 2005
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 Dec 11 2005
|