> And as for backwards compatibility, OSS software > generally doesn't have to worry about backwards > compatibility, the source is advailble, so most > of the time it's possible to make it work. Oh, > and I find wine on linux offers better than M$, > for my needs. You talk throughout your email about many people at home and then also insert this gem into it... So it is ok if you break older functionality if you supply the source? What on earth for? So someone can change it to make it work again for themselves? Does this apply to even a majority of the OSS users let alone masses of home users?
Most people wouldn't know a compiler if it bit them on the little toe. Even if they had, the vast majority can't figure out how to protect themselves from things they should have been able to protect against for a while now with firewalls and such yet you figure they can go into some OS c code and tweak it to fit themselves better? I thought we had gotten past the idea that having source so you can modify it to make it work for your particular instance was such a huge benefit. This is a tremendous nightmare for source control and patching and ultimately security. Having source to look at to see what it is doing is a good thing, having source so you can modify it to suit your needs is less so. joe -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ktabic Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2004 12:22 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Full-Disclosure] SP2 is killing me. Help? On Tue, 2004-08-17 at 10:33 -0300, James Tucker wrote: > On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 12:52:53 +0000, ktabic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
