On 3/3/12 6:01 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > Jeremy Huntwork wrote: >> >> I think the reason this comes up is because LFS is made up of a >> limited number of developers (essentially hobbyists) that don't have >> the time and resources to track down all security issues. > > I think the term hobbyist as used here is somewhat misleading. Everyone > involved in developing LFS/BLFS has quite a few years of professional > computer work and some have advanced degrees in Computer Science. It's > true that no one is paid for LFS work directly, but the term "hobbyist" > implies amateur or less than "professional" knowledge. That is > definitely not true.
I agree with this. I used the term because while the knowledge and skill is of a high grade here, the time devoted to working on it is often not. :) JH -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
