* Ian Clarke <ian.cla...@gmail.com> [2008-12-15 14:35:19]: > On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 2:07 PM, Matthew Toseland > <t...@amphibian.dyndns.org> wrote: > > Nextgens would certainly object to running Microsoft provided binaries on > > emu, > > and I can see his point. > > ...which is? >
As explained for the Nth+1 time:
Four main reasons:
- a legal one: We aren't allowed to
- a technical one: They are other ways of achieving the exact
same level of "functionality" (signing and distributing a signed
windows installers)
- a security one: we should *NOT* store the signing keys of the
installer on emu
- a lazyness related one: M$' code is not open source: we can't
easily review it and "sandboxing" it properly (to ensure it doesn't do
anything we don't want it to - I don't trust Microsoft either) involves
a lot of work I am not willing to do... Especially because
alternatives are available.
> We're the Freenet Project, not the "anti-Microsoft" project.
How is that even remotely relevant here?
> If using some Microsoft code helps us to offer a better piece of software to
> our users then why wouldn't we?
>
You are not *reading* what is written: as said toad: I object to running
Microsoft provided binaries on *emu*. I have no objection to anyone
using whatever piece of software they deem appropriate on their machine.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
