On Mon 23 Jan 2012 07:10:57 PM PST, Bjartur Thorlacius wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 11:04:55 -, Nick wrote:
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 11:57:42AM +0100, hiro wrote:
Security is not a feature.
I thought you were restricting yourself to Sundays.
Yes, on Sundays ;)
Ah, such comedians! I love
On 01-22 21:14, Eckehard Berns wrote:
I don't think it's a good idea to add complexity to a suckless program
for a _bug_ in X (that is kinda fixed already).
This got me tinking: Is there a place in the suckless philosophy for
security? (However one wants to define that). Small code base can't
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 10:40:03AM +0100, ilf wrote:
This got me tinking: Is there a place in the suckless philosophy for
security? (However one wants to define that). Small code base can't
mean insecurity.
I for one, love suckless software, but I want security as a basic
feature, too.
2012/1/23 ilf i...@zeromail.org:
I also really like sic and ii, but without extra code for SSL, I won't use
it.
there is a ssl patch for ii: http://tools.suckless.org/ii/patches/ssl
i'd like one for sic too
Security is not a feature.
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 11:57:42AM +0100, hiro wrote:
Security is not a feature.
I thought you were restricting yourself to Sundays.
Certainly it's you who's trolling today.
On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 11:04:55 -, Nick suckless-...@njw.me.uk wrote:
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 11:57:42AM +0100, hiro wrote:
Security is not a feature.
I thought you were restricting yourself to Sundays.
Yes, on Sundays ;)
--
-,Bjartur
