On Thu, Feb 10, 2005 at 04:21:49PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Jakob Oestergaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 10, 2005 at 02:43:14PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > > > * [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > the bigger problem is however that you're once again fixing the > > > > symptoms, instead of the underlying problem - not the correct > > > > approach/mindset. > > > > > > i'll change my approach/mindset when it is proven that "the underlying > > > problem" can be solved. (in a deterministic fashion) > > > > I know neither exec-shield nor PaX and therefore have no bias or > > preference - I thought I should chirp in on your comment here Ingo... > > > > ... > > > PaX cannot be a 'little bit pregnant'. (you might argue that exec-shield > > > is in the 6th month, but that does not change the fundamental > > > end-result: a child will be born ;-) > > > > Yes and no. I would think that the chances of a child being born are > > greater if the pregnancy has lasted successfully up until the 6th month, > > compared to a first week pregnancy. > > > > I assume you get my point :) > > the important point is: neither PaX nor exec-shield can claim _for sure_ > that no child will be born, and neither can claim virginity ;-) > > [ but i guess there's a point where a bad analogy must stop ;) ]
Yeah, sex is *usually* a much more pleasant experience than having your machine broken into, even if it results in a pregnancy. =) Regards: David -- /) David Weinehall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> /) Northern lights wander (\ // Maintainer of the v2.0 kernel // Dance across the winter sky // \) http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/ (/ Full colour fire (/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
