To put this another way, why not leave the 1.2.1 binaries available on a 
secondary web page dedicated to legacy operating systems? I do see merit in 
guiding new users and new downloads to the latest, secure builds, but I am 
opposed to removing the legacy versions completely (for the reasons cited 
below).

Brian


On Dec 31, 2016, at 7:02 PM, Brian Willoughby <bri...@audiobanshee.com> wrote:
> Security is quite important, but I believe that audio quality and lossless 
> performance trump security for nearly all users of flac.
> 
> In other words, unless the bugs affect the lossless quality of flac, then 
> those old downloads should remain available. Of course, place a notice about 
> the potential for security issues, but let the users make their own decisions.
> 
> Personally, I find it important to have the option of decoding my archived 
> flac files with the same version of the code that I used to compress them. 
> Granted, I'm on Mac (Unix), but I assume that the same security holes are in 
> 1.2.1 for Unix as for Windows. Sorry I'm not much of an expert on the 
> security issues, but it seems that lots of software has these sorts of 
> security holes. We should certainly address the issues, but there's no need 
> to force everyone to lose access to historical versions of the flac program. 
> Even if the new versions of flac are perfectly compatible, there is still 
> some benefit to having old versions that will run on old computer operating 
> systems. I maintain a great number of old computers for audio recording 
> purposes, and while they work fine for audio purposes they won't run new 
> builds of certain software.
> 
> Brian Willoughby
> 
> 
> On Dec 31, 2016, at 6:46 PM, Erik de Castro Lopo <mle...@mega-nerd.com> wrote:
>> there are still 1000+ downloads per week 1.2.1 windows binaries
>> with know security holes. What do people think of the idea of
>> disabling downloads of old, known buggy Windows binary downloads?

_______________________________________________
flac-dev mailing list
flac-dev@xiph.org
http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev

Reply via email to